Spontaneous Musings

The day flirts with me, but my sore body after walking 3.2 miles around a Graveyard on Monday, and 2.5 miles on Sunday, could only handle a walk around the block. Also it's dry outside, the air filled with tree pollan.
Pretty though - bright blue sky, and sun filled.

I'm bored at work. So, I started listening to Renegades: Born in the USA Podcast on Spotify. For those who don't know about it? Barack Obama and his friend, Bruce Springsteen, have gotten together in Springsteen's barn this past winter to record a series of podcasts about the divide in America and how to come together. They chat about their odd friendship, their backgrounds, and what they have in common and what they don't - along with various events in our history - snatches of song and speeches.

It's part, stroke the old ego, and part insightful commentary on the various racial and class divides. ( snippets from the podcast based on my haphazard memory )

I found it insightful - about the two men and about our world. Also a nice companion to Michelle Obama's book Becoming - which I recently finished. It's insightful as well, but also aggravating in places. I like her husband's better - it's more succinct. Michelle kind of rambles around her theme a bit. But she does mention how it is important to let people in. Open up and let them in. I thought, I'm trying, Michelle, I am trying.

My mother believes I am. But I don't know. I am a tad stand-offish, I guess.
But I'm shy and retiring too in my way, I suppose. And every time I get interested in anyone and try to strike up a close friendship or romance, they leave town on me. I don't know if it's a New York thing or just a thing.

Mother: Didn't the last guy move to France?
Me: Yes, to take care of his uncle who has dementia. He left in 2018. It was king of hard to keep a long distance relationship, it's not like we dated. Also I suck at long-distance relationships.
Mother: Most people do. You're brother is the only one I've noticed that maintained it - and only for short periods of time.
Me: I can't even maintain friendship and family long-distance that well, outside of you. Ames comes and goes.

On Twitter, discovered a lengthy interview with Ray Fisher regarding what happened with Whedon et all on the set of Justice League. It's more detailed than the previous interviews, and not all that surprising. Just manages to underline my current take on Whedon and Hollywood - aptly summed up by one responder as : "Hollywood is filled with assholes." Yep.

If you are at all curious, HERE's The Article.

My take aways? Whedon was an asshole on that set. And a lot of white folks don't understand racism or aren't sensitive to it. (I picked up on this during the Barack/Springsteen conversation, along with Michelle's book, but also talking to folks in my workplace.)

Katherine Forrest, a former federal judge who conducted the WarnerMedia probe, tells THR in a statement that in interviews with more than 80 witnesses, she found "no credible support for claims of racial animus" or racial "insensitivity."

I don't know, I watched the two films and compared them - I'd say what that I found the Whedon film to be insensitive racially (and gender wise) on multiple levels. But that may be subjective on my part.

( excerpts )

From the above? Whedon pissed off some interesting folks. Patty Jenkins, Gail Gadot, Jeremy Irons, and apparently everyone in the cast. (That cast included Amy Adams, Ben Affleck, Henry Caville, Diane Lane, Joe Morton, Jeremy Irons, Jason Momoa...).

I think he'd have gotten away with it, if his version of Justice League wasn't such a bad film, and hadn't bombed at the box office. What's interesting is why HBO/Warner Brothers stuck with him after that? I'd have fired his ass. How'd he get to do the Nevers? Maybe they gave him a break due to the impossible circumstances? Or he had something on one of the execs, who finally left?

Anyhow, from what I read - I'd say the Whedon Cut was racially insensitive, and from what I saw of Whedon's cut - as compared to what Zack Snyder did? The Whedon version was racially insensitive and gender insensitive. I mean I was offended by it - when I compared the two films. You don't necessarily see it without the comparison - and I think the reason for that - is people think, oh, it's a comic book or that's just the medium. We hand-wave a lot of things. OR that's just Whedon's sense of humor. Or it's not like it's not like that in the comics or cartoon.

It's not the medium. You don't have to do it that way. That's what I think is coming out right now - that excuse, oh we have to do it this way, is just that an excuse, it's justified. There's no reason why you can't have a diverse superhero team, where all the characters have an arc and agency, not just the White Guys. It can be done. And it can be done well.

Going back to Barack and Springsteen's podcasts...I've made it through four so far, I think there are eight? Anyhow, going back to the podcasts, they make an interesting point about the cinema of my childhood, and theirs - the 1970s Westerns, where we have ingrained in us the loner hero, who has no home, no roots. No community. And this fear of being domesticated. I think that's partly the old school Hollywood writers and directors problem at the moment - they are stuck in that mindset. I know Whedon kind of is. That toxic white male loner mentality. John Wayne's misanthropic character in The Searchers. Or Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter and later The Unforgiven. It's ingrained in a portion of our society and breaking out of that mold is not easy - I don't think. But necessary. To find community and roots...which is hard for outsiders to do.

***

On the COVID front? Still being inundated with bereavement notices and requests to take the vaccine via workplace.

Sis-in-law told mother that she is going to take the second dose of the Moderna. She'll just get sick is all. She now has a two boils on her leg, but it appears to be getting better - and she'll survive. Niece apparently is lined up to get the vaccine next week.

Family is making headway. I may get to see them all again in the not too distant future.

Huzzah! Also I'm thinking of sending my niece flowers to congratulate her for getting into the London School of Economics Foreign Exchange Program (she had to apply and worked hard for it) and on her up-coming graduation.

Here's the link to Obama's speech on Libya tonight along with the transcript:

http://www.shallownation.com/2011/03/26/president-obama-libya-speech-video-march-28-2011-address-at-national-defense-university/

You can watch the full speech on CNN or just read the transcript on that site.

( Excerpts that stood out for me behind the cut )
Got to give him credit for being a great speaker and have a really good speech writer.

( my thoughts for what they are worth? Ah warning, I say a little something about the death penalty...with any luck it won't offend anyone. You guys know I'm liberal? Right? )

Never thought this would happen in my lifetime. Course I didn't think we'd have a black president or the possibility of a woman president, let alone a woman secretary of State. Told a woman just last week that I'd be shocked if the health care bill ever got passed. Assumed the insurance lobby was too tough. But...what do I know? And thank ghod, I was wrong. In these instances, I'm very happy to be wrong.

In case you've been residing under a rock HR 4872 - the Senate Health Reform Bill passed by the Senate in December got passed by the House this Sunday and was signed into law. So yes, a National Health Care Reform Bill got passed in the US after...well over 100 years of trying. I kid you not. Theodore Roosevelt tried to get the thing passed.

Go here for a historical perspective on the efforts to get a National Health Care Bill passed that date back to well the 1800s. It has taken us not one but two centuries to get this bill passed, people. That's no small accomplishment. And while the War is largely over, there are still a few more skirmishes on the horizon - also it will take at least until 2014 or 2018 for some of the measures to take effect. What is interesting to me is Republicans have tried to get it through Congress - starting with Theodore Roosevelt and ending with Richard Nixon (of all people). Lyndon Johnson came the closest.

The stumbling block was getting it past Congress. The Founding Fathers made this harder than they ever would have imagined. No one could get the Senate and the House to agree. But the House did the unthinkable on Sunday - they passed the Senate Bill. All that remains to be voted on apparently are a few items that need to be reconciled...or rather amendments, and those do not require 60 votes. They can be passed with less. One of th amendments, in case you are at all curious - was deleting or throwing out the clause where the federal government paid Nebraska to cover their uninsured. Or something to that effect.

The compromise on abortion is NOT an amendment to the Bill but an EXECUTIVE ORDER signed by the President that would state federal funds are not to be used to pay for abortions. This does not mean you can't have them or that insurance companies can't pay for them, just that federal funds can't be used. And since it is an executive order - it can be overturned by a new administration.

If you want to read the bill for yourself go here: http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_amndsub.pdf

And here's CBS News description of what it entails:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

The best parts about the bill - which take effect now and why I was a 100% for this??

1. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE-- Eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Effective beginning January 1, 2011.

2. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES-- Creates a temporary re-insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55-64. Effective 90 days after enactment

3. ENDS RESCISSIONS-- Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

4. NO DISCRIMINATON AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS-- Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

5. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

6. BANS RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE-- Tightly restricts new plans' use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

These are huge and necessary changes. What they prevent is a reoccurrence of what has happened to family members. My uncle and aunt, who had to sacrifice 401K's and jobs and go into debt in order to pay for her lymphomatic cancer. I FOUGHT for this in 1994. I gave up on it. Thought it was impossible. Worked for a health insurer and saw how they abused their power to deny people insurance in order to make a fast buck (they got their asses handed to them on the House Floor a month ago).

This bill is historic. It is a turning point in history.

Regarding the abortion bit? While I am "pro-choice" for a lot of reasons I won't bore you with and have studied abortion law in the US (know quite a bit about this topic as well) I'm not upset about it. I see the slippery slope on that one all too clearly...using federal funds for abortion rights could be problematic at this juncture. There are certain specific qualifiers that would have to be put into place to ensure that the government did not abuse the funds to force under-privileged or people to have abortions. Just as there would have to be certain specific qualifiers that did not permit the government to tell people who could and could not have one. As it stands now - the only restriction is you can't use federal funds. And it is a restriction enforced by an Executive Order NOT by an actual legislative law. Executive Orders are actually easier to overturn.

So YAY!!!! I'm doing it here, because I can't say YAY at work, too many conservatives in the mix. I'm sure there a few here, but, well, I rarely post on politics so you will just have to indulge me. I've been fighting for national health care longer than I've been online.

Extremely proud of my country and President today. I was completely right to vote for him, he's done exactly what I wanted him to do. And I don't give a rats ass what the detractors think about it.

( Why I Am Proud to be American today listening to My Country Tis of Thee- only thing about politics or the presidency in this post )

"> The Pervert's Guide to Cinema

List of Films dicussed go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Cinema

YouTube Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sFqfbrsZbw

( Synopsis from The P Guide. )

Wales and I went to see The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, described above, at The IFC Theater last night - which is housed in the old Waverly Art House in the Village on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street, next to the subway.

The IFC theater is perhaps the most comfortable theater I've been in. Cushioned arm-chairs with acres of leg room. We found good seats in the middle of the row, next to two guys we'd been chatting with in the lobby. I'd found the film through one of the film goer's meetup groups I'd joined on Meetgroups.com.

The film clocks in at about 2 hours and 35 minutes. It felt like three hours. Long film. And somewhat intense. With a narrator who has a very thick eastern european accent and speaks passionately in a staccato voice.

That said? It did fulfill my weird craving for a psychoanalytical discussion of cinema and media - which I kept, rather unsuccessfully, trying to do with people online. Although, I think it was a bit much for Wales. After Part II, she asked what time it was and when she discovered there was another hour to go, she muttered - "I'm dying here, dying."

The film was too long. Repetitive in places. And reminded me why I did not get a graduate degree in film or media criticism, and did not become a philosopher or psychologist. It is also reminded me of why I despise Freud and much prefer Jung. The psychoanalysis is Fruedian, with a capital F. Unlike Freud, Jung was not an absolutist, and questioned things, was more curious and open. Frued tends to be more absolute and unquestioning in his analysis - often ignoring the flaws in his generalizations and assumptions.

But.

It was a fascinating film and Zizek had some interesting ideas regarding the language of cinema.

Last night I wrote down what I remembered from the film. Here they are. These are my impressions of what was said and what I got from it. They are not necessarily my views, nor do I agree with everything that was disclosed by Zizek - who focused solely on films and filmmakers who supported his theories, ignoring those that did not. His presentation was at times manipulative and persuasive, but once you realized that the focus was so narrow, you began to question his theories.

( Part I - Desire : Cinema tells us what we desire and helps us define our reality, Freud's interest was not in the fact we are having sex or how, but rather, what we are thinking and imagining during it and why the libido needs to fantasize. Why are we fantasizing to enjoy it. )

( Part II: Male Fantasy - dealing with the female engima by obliterating her monsterous and dirty presence, making her little more than a reflection of the male, a part of him, which if he removes - he is free. )

( Part II, B- The Female Fantasy )

( Part III: Distintergation/Reconstruction of Self and Fantasy as a way of discovering self )

( Part III -Romantic Fantasy - Projection of Fantasy on to the other )

One additional point of interest - Hitchcock apparently loved to manipulate the emotions of his audience and found new ways to do it in each of his films through images and music.
His dream was that sometime in the future - the human brain would be hot-wired to a device and all a director had to do was push buttons to obtain the emotional response he desired.
[Hitchcock was one twisted individual - who had serious problems with women. So does Zizek in my opinion. Actually so did Freud.]

Interesting film. I recommend with one caveat - rent it, don't buy or go see in a theater. You may want to fast-forward.

To realize how amazing this election is, you only have to rent the 1960s film Guess Who's Coming to Dinner starring Sydney Poiter, Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. The film is about a white woman who brings her African-American fiancee to her parent's house for dinner.
In the film, there is a scene betwee Spenser Tracy and Sydney Poiter, who respectively play the girl's father and his future-son-inlaw respectively. Tracy tells Poiter that he worries about their children. They'll never be accepted in the world. Won't ever be able to be say, President of the US. Poiter responds, "President? Heck, I'd be satisfied with Secretary of State or a cabinet post."

In 1960s, when the film was first released, the mere idea of interracial marriage was a bit controversial, so much so, that Sydney Poiter and the woman who played his fiancee in the film were not permitted to kiss or embrace. That was not permitted back then on screen.
Or so my mother informs me.

So how amazing is it that in the past eight years, we've had not one but two Secretary's of Defense who happened to African-American and now, today, have a man who was the child of an interracial marriage between a white woman and an African, run for President of the United States on a major party ticket? Barack Obama is the same age as the child from Sydney Poiter and his soon to be spouse in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner's marriage. Something neither thought they'd see in their lifetime.

Meanwhile, I read an article in this weeks Economist about conservative Republicans jumping ship and backing Barack Obama. It's on page 46, under an article entitled: Lexington: The Rise of the Obamacons.

The article states in one passage: "Much of Obama's rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reagonesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons proving that the country is a race-bling meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton."

The cartoon accompanying the piece is rather amusing - it depicts a bunch of elephants jumping off a sinking ship with the GOP flag waving, and climbing abord a pristine cruiser with Obama 08 and a bunch of astonished donkey's peering over the side.

The writer describes from of the evacuees or rats fleeing the ship depending on your pov:
"Mr. Powell (Colin Powell) is now a four-star general in America's most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight's granddaughter, who introduced Mr. Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William F. Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party, the Republican PArty has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebrasks and one-time bosom buddy of Mr. McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement..."

"The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of liberatarians, furious with Mr. Bush's big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended war on terror, and disqusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing "liberatarians for Obama" web sites. Cafe Press is even offering a libertarian for Obama lawn sign for 19.95. Larry Hunter who helped devise Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr. Obama can free America from the grip of the zombies who now run the Republican Party."

This election has been fascinating me. Online, I've read more and more conservative and independents, who voted for HW Bush and Reagan in the past - support Obama. Even a few who voted for George W. Bush. And having seen Reagan speak, albeit briefly, in public, Obama does remind me a bit of him in deameanor and temperment. I was not a Reagan fan by the way. Didn't like the man and didn't like his policies. And strongly believe he led us to where we are today in more ways than one. But, I think what people found appealing in Reagan exists in OBama. Reagan set people at ease, in much the same way JFK, Robert F. Kennedy, and Obama does.
Even Bill Clinton had a bit of it. And I think it is an invaluable quality in a leader, in some respects it is a necessary one particularly in an age in which the leader is so visible to the public. Roosevelt had it, FDR. And so did Lincoln.

What's interesting about the election - if you have been watching the polls and reading the analysis of the campaign strategies - is not just the surreal moments, but how the game is being played. Did you know that Obama went after Arizona today? He put resources and people out West? While McCain is concentrating everything on PA, Ohio and Florida? Also that the race in Arizona is literally neck and neck? Arizona hasn't to my knowledge voted Democrat in at least 15-20 years. And it's McCain's home state. Same deal with Virgina, which is leaning towards OBama. And Colorado.

Also, the McCain campaign appears to be unraveling. One incredible gaff after another, some so bizarre that the sketch comedy teams can barely keep up. I watch the SNL skits and realize that the difference between the skit and what's actually happening is...well it's hard to tell what's satire and what isn't. It's almost as if John Stewart and company are paying the McCain camp to feed them material, even though I know that is not the case. Meanwhile Palin has become a charicature of herself. She reminds me a lot of those reality tv stars, a la Omirosa from the Apprentice, et al, who get 15 minutes of fame and go hog wild. Look, Mom, I'm a star! People are copying my style! Isn't it neat? Yet, oblivious to the fact that they are being ridiculed in the process? Or maybe they just don't care. [The latest, which I read in this mornings paper, is a McCain supporter who made up a hoax that an OBama supporter maimed her and managed to fool everyone in the McCain camp as well as some conservative news pundits, before being revealed and coming clean.]

We live in insane but highly entertaining times.

Racism, is a topic that appears to continue to permeate my life, in an at times insidious manner and others more overt one. I think it does everyone's lives to some extent. Some clearly more than others. Much as homophobia, chauvinism, sexism and misogyny often do. It's a particularly annoying one, because I'm no longer sure it can be resolved or rather not in a manner that does not involve a great deal of sacrifice and change from people who do not want to change or sacrifice anything, including or especially how they think and what they value.

That said, I must say, we've made a lot of progress. Anyone born after 1980, probably can't see it - because they weren't alive during the period in which it was a huge deal to have minorities in lead roles on tv and film. Or to see someone who was a woman or a black man in a position of authority. It wasn't until I hit my teens that I began to see it more. The idea of a woman and a black man running for president, let alone being a viable canididate for president, was not something I thought I'd live to see in my lifetime.

Living in NYC is a bit like living in a community on the fringe of class/race war, yet somehow manages to back away from it at the last minute. The anger is certainly there - I feel it constantly, on my way to work each morning, on my way home, walking around the park at work, at work, on the streets around my apartment. After a while you learn to shut it out, you have to, in order to function.

Some people appear to be oblivious to it. I'm not sure if this is due to where they work and live or if they are just able to shut it out better.
( Sean Bell )

( Obama )


( racism in television shows - where to begin... )

Well, I continue to watch American Idol slaughter my favorite 1980's tunes. Didn't realize how much I liked the 1980's pop songs until now. And Paula Abdul babble incoherently. I can't tell, but I think she might be on something.

Anyhow...am brain dead, hence the American Idol watching. Work is frying my brain and sapping my energy. Good thing it's only eight hours, not including the hour commute, which makes it ten. I get home and just want to veg in front of the telly - although I did do thirty minutes of piliates and made dinner. So...not too bad. Last night read more of The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama - this chapter was on Opportunity, the one before on the Constitution. Got all riled up by the last two chapters - I agree with Obama, but am frustrated with our current administration's policies. And he was talking about education - which I have a chip on my shoulder regarding. ( me grousing on education, about the good teachers I had and why they were good )

In case you haven't noticed, I've become a tad obsessed with the American Presidential Race - maybe because for the first time in ten years, possibly more, I actually am rooting for someone. I'm actually pleased with two of the people running. I may not be a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but I wouldn't mind if she became president. And I genuinely like Barack Obama and what he stands for. The American public appears to be as indecisive as my own family, in regards to Hillary and Barack - we can't make up our damn minds. One day it's Barack, the next it is Hillary. Now if John McClain would just jump out of the way...;-)
I'm currently rooting for Barack. But I honestly don't know which one would make a better president. I know they'd both be better than McCain, who only seems to care about fighting a hopeless war in Iraq. Which, I guess, if that's your main concern - I'd see why you'd vote for him. Me? I think Iraq was a stupid mistake from the get-go, and it's doing to us what the Soviet Union's little wars and invasions did to them - bankrupting us. I'm not sure how we should resolve, I'm not sure it can be neatly resolved. I do know that it has not made us more secure, or safer. If anything it's given Al-Quaida more power than before. Since McCain disagrees with me - I honestly don't want him as President. Plus, he seems to be a bit hypocritical on the whole torture thing and that worries me. And there's that little problem with wanting to give the affluent tax cuts and the middle-incom/low income no breaks at all.
Plus no universial health care. In short - McCain will only create a bigger divide between the rich and the poor in the US, continue to escalate the war and deficit, and break the economy in the process. He hasn't said anything to alevate those fears. Heck, if he had, George W. Bush wouldn't be endorsing him. I don't understand why people want that. I'm smart enough not to ask the people at work - politics and religion are not topics one discusses at work. I might ask my friend, CW, who is a McCain fan and a Republican on Friday. Assuming I see her on Friday, she's in Boston at the moment.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I've been reading The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama lately. Surprisingly good. Didn't expect to enjoy reading it, honestly. These types of books usually either put me to sleep or aggravate me. But this one is fairly engaging and manages to put into words many of the things I've been thinking about the US, our current political climate, our past history, and what needs to be done for quite some time.

These two paragraphs taken directly from the prologue - pretty much summarize my own political philosophy:
( political belief )

Later in the book - he makes a point of showing how complex people are. That people can not be put in boxes. That we are more alike than we think. That for all our differences, we really do share the same values and basically want the same things - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - the ability to find a good job, have a family, spend time with our family, have a home, food, shelter, health, clean air and clean water.

( Nixon )

( Obama's Take on Presdent Reagan and why America voted for him )

( Clinton and Gringrich, Rove and Norquist - polarization in the government )

( Absolutism, Hillary/Obama debate comparisons, Obama's views on Republicans and Democrats and what needs to change )

I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodocy and the sheer predictablity of our current debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challengs we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in 'either/or' thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace socialized medicine.

It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off politics. This is not a problem for the right; a polarized electorate - or one that esily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate - works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government.

I saw this in the Obama/Clinto debate as well - particularly in regards to our current President. Clinton went after Bush personally, calling him names, while Obama took a different approach - an approach quite similar to the one he does in this book - where he states in his second Chapter:
( Bush )

Obama says that he is under no illusion "that the task of building a working majority will be easy. But it's what must do, precisely because the task of solving America's problems will be hard. It will require tough choices, and it will require sacrifice. Unless political leaders are open to new ideas and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy policy or tame the deficit. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism without resorting to isolationism or eroding civil liberties. We won't have a mandate to overhaul America's broken health-care system. and we won't have the broad political support or the effective strategies needed to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of poverty."

In 2005 - he responded to a blog attacking Democrats for voting for Chief Justice John Roberts, who he had voted against. He was supporting and defending them. Stating much the same argument he poses above. And got the predictable range of responses.

And he wonders if maybe the critics are right, that there's no escaping the great political divide and maybe most of us have given up seeing it as little more than a spectator sport.

But - he believes - that this isn't true. That there are people out there like himself. ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way - in their own lives, at least - to make peace with their neighbors and themselves. I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn't see why the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his own son. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just tired of the drug dealers in fron of those buildings as he is of the bakers who won't give him a loan to expand his business. There's the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children they did bring into the world.

I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting.

( What I think of all of this, and my current take on Clinton, McCain and Obama )