Let's Talk Politics!

Move over, Shirley McLain, I’m going out on a limb to discuss politics. Please hang in there with me; you may be in for some surprises.

Sarah Palin caught my attention and earned my admiration when she landed like a meteorite upon our national scene, as a presidential running mate. Though highly impressed by Barack Obama’s spectacular speech at the 2003 Democratic convention I, as an ardent supporter of our military and a believer that experience trumps charisma, sided with John McCain. Not an easy choice. Although I preferred his straight talk and spontaneity to Obama’s impressive rhetoric tempered by his reliance on teleprompters, I was also concerned about MCain’s advancing age, which became more apparent as the campaign wore on. (It is because I admire McCain that I was somewhat relieved when he lost. I’d rather see him survive as a Senator than be done in by the pressures of a higher office.) As for Sarah, I found her delightfully refreshing in an arena dominated by starched and stuffed shirts.

Although I feel extremely proud of our country for advancing a non-white to our highest office, I am less than favorably impressed by President Obama’s performance to date. All else aside, what will stick forever in my craw is the blatant public disrespect he showed Senator McCain with his totally uncalled for the campaign’s over John, I won remark. No way to treat an American hero, whether you’re in the oval office or sitting at the right hand of God, for that matter. It was so far beneath a sitting president that it spoke volumes (to me) about his character.

As for Sarah, I have moved from awestruck to objective observation. It does not bother me that she is folksy as opposed to refined, and feisty as opposed to diplomatic. What does bother me is that these traits that once felt to me like a breath of fresh air are beginning to feel forced. Come on Sarah, you can do better.

Recently she has come under fire (sorry) for using the same warlike metaphors that others in both parties have used unabashedly, and for releasing a televised statement that many feel was unnecessary and demonstrative of her poor judgment. Please. Her goal was not to heal the nation. It was to defend herself. A human instinct. If she had not released her statement, most of these critics would be whining, “Why isn’t Sarah speaking up? Sure proof of her guilt!” The fact is the media has from the get go laid in wait to pounce upon her like vultures circling red meat. (As for the infamous Katie Couric interview, anyone who knows anything about editing knows a person can be made to look either foolish or brilliant, depending on who's doing the cut-and-paste job.)

Celebrities have piled on Sarah to snipe, and the tackier the better. Joy Behar of The View exemplifies this with petty tirades and asides so ongoing they’ve become monotonous. When Sarah’s first book came out Joy muttered, “She didn’t even write it.” Stupid is perhaps an adjective better applied to Joy than to Sarah; along with one of Joy’s own favorites… bitch. For “new material” she stooped low enough to attack Crystal Palin for advocating teen abstinence and appearing on Dancing with the Stars. Joy, like other Sarah haters, states her opinions as though they are fact. Does The View pay her extra for being bitter and mean spirited?

My oldest son shudders at the sound of Sarah Palin’s name, and we literally cannot carry on a conversation about her without his face turning an angry red. On the other hand his daughter adores the woman and in August when I sent her a calendar from Alaska with twelve months of Sarah, you would have thought I’d sent her twelve gold nuggets! The thing is, I don’t believe that anything anyone says or does will budge either my son or my granddaughter from their opposing positions. They are entrenched in their respective convictions, which makes me smile as only a loving mother/grandmother can.

Personally I like Sarah. Her persona is more in sync with my personality than is Obama’s. Yet I can and do give the president credit when he shines in the spotlight of a prepared speech such as the one at the recent memorial service in Arizona. And I can and do feel disappointment in Sarah when I suspect her of toying with the public primarily to sell a book. Do I think she will run for high office in 2012? No, I do not. Despite the fact that she is not a graduate of some elite ivy-walled university, I consider her an intelligent woman, and certainly smart enough to realize that the power of the media (adamantly against her) outweighs the power of the tea party (commoners who relate to her). She knows that, at least as things now stand, she cannot win. If she did run, would I vote for her? Maybe, maybe not. I voted for her as VP because, as backup to McCain, I found her no less qualified to run our country (surrounded by a carefully sculpted administration) than Biden (who, by the way, has made as many political gaffs as has Sarah, though they are not as widely publicized).

In my opinion (which I realize is not fact), Sarah Palin has found her niche as a high profile cheerleader for her team, earning big bucks in the process. More power to her. As for Barack Obama, I believe that if he decides to implement his campaign promise to unite rather than divide us, and to act in the interest of his country rather than pushing his own agenda, the man will be unbeatable in 2012. He stands tall, smart and handsome at a pivotal place in history. Let's see what, in the end, he does with that.

Will I vote for him? Maybe, maybe not. I’m more interested in his actions than his words, and one small thing I’d like to see is a body language adjustment. Check it out next time he’s on TV. His head is almost always tilted upward, like someone reading through bifocals. Of course this can be considered “keeping his chin up” or “looking down his nose,” depending on interpretation. I recommend an open mind… view it as worthy of note, and watch for larger movements from him that indicate a deep seated shift in one direction or the other – toward arrogance or humility.

Politics can be both inspiring and infuriating. As a follower, I feel compelled to point out that we who watch from the comfort of our living rooms see only what the media wants us to see. They act as censors and relay to us only what supports their agenda. A person or event covered in one context can bear little or no resemblance to the same person or event covered in another. Unless we see or hear something firsthand, what reaches us is always tainted. When we pass it on, even we modify information based on our own perceptions. This is the nature of cummincation.

To borrow from the wisdom of Zen: If a master points upward in answering a question, we must not mistake the finger being pointed, for the moon being pointed out.

Shirley Sherrod and The Secret

What has happened recently to Shirley Sherrod is interesting, ironic, and discouraging. We should be able to trust the media to get it right, and to remain objective in their coverage; but those days are apparently gone for good.

When we finally learned Ms. Sherrod was quoted out of context to come across as racist, what occurred to me is (1) how many times I've been misquoted by the press simply due to lazy reporting, and (2) how the technique of "words out of context" can be used deliberately as a weapon against the speaker.

Or to mislead others.

And this brings to my mind the research Frank and I did when The Secret (Rhonda Byrne's huge money maker) became all the rage. For starters, Ms. Byrne attributed a self-serving quote to Ralph Waldo Emerson: "The secret is the answer to all that has been, all that is, and all that ever will be." According to the Emerson Society (authentic experts and thorough in their knowledge of all things Emerson), no such statement (or anything close to it)ever existed. But here's the tactic used by Byrne that correlates to the Shirley Shirrod fiasco:

In The Secret Ms Byrne quotes Winston Churchill as saying: "You create your own universe as you go along." This statement appears IN CONTEXT as follows (in caps so that it's easier to spot).

“Some of my cousins who had the great advantage of University education used to tease me with arguments to prove that nothing has any existence except what we think of it. The whole creation is but a dream; all phenomena are imaginary. YOU CREATE YOUR OWN UNIVERSE AS YOU GO ALONG. The stronger your imagination, the more variegated your universe. When you leave off dreaming, the universe ceases to exist.

"These amusing mental acrobatics are all right to play with. They are PERFECTLY HARMLESS and PERFECTLY USELESS. I warn my younger readers only to treat them as a game. The metaphysicians will have the last word and defy you to disprove their absurd propositions.”

The quote Byrne attributes to Churchill actually represents the point of view of his COUSINS, with whom Churchuill did NOT agree! In fact, in his own words he declares such "mental acrobatics" to be "perfectly useless."

I have studied ancient philosopy, metaphysics and quantum physics. In all fairness, much of what The Secret teaches is valid; however, some of it is not; and the fact that Byrne felt it necessary to resort to shoddy misrepresentations to support her work, (a) detracts from her credibility and (b) disturbs me. Her public deserves better.

I disagree with Churchill's pronouncement that gullibility in this area is "harmless." Byrne sells the snake oil and includes the caveat that if it doesn't work, it's the fault of the person who bought it, not the person who sold it. She places full responsibiity on each of us as individuals, with no recognition of a divine force superior to man, with the power to intervene in our course of actions. Furthermore, victims such as those devestated by Hurricane Katrina or the 9/11 tragedy, for example, brought it on themselves, she says... giving no recognition either to the negative polarity that exists in our universe.

Her claims are not harmless. Indeed they inflict harm on those gullible enough to believe that, should they fall short of success following her teachings, their failure is their own fault.

Apparently the secret discovered by Ms. Byrne is actually how to make a lot of money selling a little truth wrapped up in a lot of b.s. Maybe she learned this from the modern day media. Or did they learn it from her?

The Mel Gibson Debacle

I have had it!

No, not with Mel Gibson. I've never been a huge Mel Gibson fan, so how dramatically he screws up his life is not something I'll lose sleep over.

I've had it with the media! Nothing irks me more than having my intelligence insulted, and the media gets off big time on doing exactly that.

Here are some sensible (as opposed to salacious) points I'd like to make:

1. Am I the only one who knows how easy it is to mix voices on a recording? And to "cut and paste" sound bites to make an exchange into something it wasn't? Consider this possibility:

She says (in reality): "Mel, you cut my allowance in half last month!"

He says (in reality): "You were snorting coke with the baby in your arms. You deserved it when I only gave you 10K instead of 20K for your damned incidentals."

She has this on tape. Now she doctors the tape. She says into a recorder, "You hit me in the mouth when I was holding the baby, and you broke two of my teeth." After which she splices in Mel saying, "... You deserved it!"

Now don't get me wrong. I have been the victim of spousal abuse (a zillion years ago), so this ditsy dame gets no sympathy from me. Nor does Mel. It goes without saying it's their baby I care most about. But here's the question: Is Mel an over-the-top a..h.... extraordinaire, or is he manic depressive? Which is a mental disorder. He's so text book manic depressive it screams out (no pun intended) at anyone who has ever so much as sat in on a Psychology 101 class!

Now I'm not going to try here to educate the public on manic depression,. I'm no expert. But I will say this, because it needs saying (and the media certainly isn't taking the opportunity): (1) There seems to be a direct positive correlation between manic depression and head injuries. Duh. Has not Mel-the-mess done many of his own movie stunts? (2) Remember when Mel had a cathedral built where he could worship because the mainstream Catholic environment was too "soft" for his deep devotion? Duh. Manic depressives are people who take extreme opposites to... the extreme. A private cathedral and the penchant for verbal/physical/possibly sexual abuse he demonstrates? Extreme opposites. Hello? (3) Delusions associated with narcissism are common with manic depression, often centering on, "I'm so special, so superior to others, that the rules and laws that apply to them don't apply to me!"

My point here is actually this one: If reporters actually cared about reporting in any manner that might actually serve a societal purpose, wouldn't they be looking at and talking about manic depression -- which can decimate lives and has decimated thousands of lives apart from this sad, sorry-ass celebrity couple? Fact is, reporters are not in the news business to help make this world a better place. They're in it to make their paychecks better! And the unquestioning public supports this and them.

Most reporters practically salivate when something turns to s...t and they can get to it with a microphone and a camera. And objectivity? Puleeeze. They can't even fake it. And since I'm admittedly no expert, where the h...l are all the actual psychiatric experts who could be on talk shows actually educating the public about manic depression?

That's actually why I've had it!