Showing up

"Why don't you come on back to the war, let's all get even"

-Leonard Cohen

Being heard has been a defining motivator in my life.  As a mother in her forties, I find it bemusing how invisible I am. 

Yet being invisible has its advantages.  Much can be done when others are not paying attention.

I'm breaking my radio/blog silence because I can't quit you; this is my way of being heard.  Even if only a handful of friends hear me. 

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.  Speaking and listening matter, but in the end, it's the actions that speak for themselves. 

I am determined that my legacy be one of showing up.  I show up to things I value.  And when I can't show up (usually due to finances, or being the mom of twins), I want the people I love to know that I'm there in spirit.

People can throw around all sorts of ideas.  Who wins.  Why they win. Who's right and who's wrong.  In the end, respect is apparent, no matter what is said. 

Respect is showing up.  Love is doing the dishes, voting, marching.  Respect is learning and being open to learning.  Being willing to be wrong.

Words matter.  But in the end, what one does matters more than what one says. 

Thoughts about the Ukrainian conflict

I've been watching the news in Ukraine with interest.  Obviously, as an ethnic Ukrainian I have an interest in what happens to the country.  Also as a Russian history major  I have an interest in how the two countries work out their differences.

Some brief thoughts about the conflict:
-Many Russians consider themselves the same ethnicity as Ukrainians. Ukraine is just another province or state, much like Alaska is for the U.S.  (Or  Quebec is for Canada).  So it's not cut and dry, but many Russians see this differently than Ukrainians.

-History is everywhere with this conflict.  Stalin and the Soviet Union committed genocide against the Ukrainian people. He starved millions of Ukrainians and had armed guards around the granaries.  He punished people for speaking Ukrainian. My great uncle returned to Ukraine in the 1980s as a Ukranian speaker and teacher.

Thanks for nothing Khrushchev!

-Crimea itself was a part of Russia/the Soviet Union until 1954 when Khrushchev gave it back to Ukraine in a political gesture.  This piece of land has been fought over for a long time and has changed hands often.

-In fact, my great-great grandfather lived in the same place in Ukraine but was a citizen for four different countries.  Austria-Hungary, Romania, Ukraine and Russia.  The territory has been fought over and changed hands often (as Colbert points out, anyone who plays Risk knows this).

-East vs. West in Russia and Ukraine has been a long standing tension/philosophy.  Most historians agree it started with Peter the Great.  Throughout modern Russian history figuring out that balance of embracing the west and western culture while keeping the unique parts of Slavic culture has been a challenge.  Anyone who doesn't see that tension doesn't understand some of what's going on behind the scenes in this conflict.

-While the Soviet Union was a great geo-political power, that country failed.  The political system failed, for many reasons.  Returning to those days is not feasible.  Both countries need to move forward, to continue to grow and reform.  Sure, lots of older people/pensioners in Russia wish for the day when things were stable and guaranteed.  But that stability was based on the blood of many dissidents and on genocide.  Going back is not tenable. Both countries will need to reform and make changes (some difficult changes) to make things fair and equitable.

Communist rally Moscow 1996

I support de-escalation of the conflict - a diplomatic solution.  There may yet be a diplomatic solution possible.

I don't support countries invading other countries' sovereign territory.  I support Ukraine.

It is in the U.S. interest for both our political parties to work together for a resolution to this conflict - not to let party politics get in the way.

I don't want to see open war between the two countries, and I hope that doesn't happen.  It would be (for me) a little like the U.S. going to war with Canada.  It would be a poor solution and no one would win.

Sochi 1996

I have such mixed feelings about the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Sochi 1996 view from hotel

I've been watching them for a week now, and been just thrilled to see the competition (but also thrilled to see such a beautiful location).

We visited Sochi on a weekend trip back in December 1996.  We rode the train there and stayed in hostels.  Many friends actually swam (it was that warm).  I just remembered all the plants, the architecture was amazing.

But I am distressed by the human rights actions in Russia (and have been for some time).  The imprisonment of Pussy Riot, the freedom of the press.  I am pro-GLBT rights, pro human rights.  

Me @Sochi 1996

So I'm conflicted that by supporting the games, I'm supporting the Russian government and its policies.  

One thing I did learn, all those years ago was that the people were separate from the government.  That just because the American government decided to do things that I supported their actions.  And that the Russian people were generally the same.  It is a complex issue.  So I support the athletes, and I support the peaceful protesters.  

And I do wish I were there now, despite losing most of my Russian language skills.

Election thoughts

Que sera, sera - whatever will be, will be

I went to sleep Tuesday night, long before the election returns were in.  I spent the first hour Wednesday deliberately not checking news sources.  Preparing myself for whatever results happened. It was a surprisingly quiet, calm hour. I know I'm typically not very political on this blog but I have some thoughts for the Republicans.  

I really enjoyed this podcast about political differences.

 

this podcast

There are major disagreements on how to proceed.

 This is simply my take.
1 - Don't choose a candidate with a silver spoon
Clinton and Obama both came from single parent homes. This makes a difference. The vast majority of Americans live in single parent homes or other non-traditional families. They're not raised in privilege.

Working class roots won't seal the deal, of course. A person needs to have a pragmatic point of view and be willing to be moderate on social issues. Which leads me to point 2...
 2 - Whatever happened to fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans?
My liberal friends have been making hay from this election, but I predict that once the fiscally conservative/socially moderate Republicans reappear - the Democrats will have a real fight on their hands. If there's a mandate from this election - it might be that maybe more Republicans would win if they promoted small government. Small government that stays out of your personal life. That gives you the freedom to make your own personal choices - without the state's interference. It shocks me that this is not more popular in the GOP.
3 - No legacies
Another thing most of my Republican and Democrat friends can agree on - we don't like political seats being "gifted" to a child or grandchild. One Democratic friend of mine voted for one Republican - against the Democrat who gained their seat from a parent (same last name). I see this trend as well. This country was founded against inherited aristocracy, like we saw in England. We don't want to recreate that.
4 - Moderation
The message is clear - we need more moderates. We need people who will question their party line. And the moderates will win over swing voters. It's a lesson for both sides. There is a reason that congress had a very low approval rating. No one wants our representatives to simply refuse to work with one another. Find common ground (there is common ground). Work together to get things done. Figure out what's non-negotiable and figure out what's negotiable and work from there. We really do start to look like Rome when we refuse to work together.

Teaching, Test Scores and Education

Back in college, I had a conversation with a friend about his prospects.

My friend claimed his grades didn't matter; how he looked on paper didn't matter.  What mattered was that he could get in front of the decision makers and charm them (state his case).  There are many definitions of privilege.  To my mind, this is one of them.  Privilege is being able to get an audience with decision makers despite not meeting the original qualifications.

I've been involved (more than I ever wanted to be) in recent discussions about education, school structure and test scores.  For anyone not intimately involved in this current American educational debate, test scores now define everything in most schools.  The scores grade the teacher's performance.  The law is called "No Child Left Behind".  It means, for better or worse, what I remember from my school days is not longer what most students experience.  The students spend more time on math and reading, lots of drills and benchmark tests.  They get less for everything else; music, art, p.e. (gym), science and social studies.  

The school my children attend is a great school, but they have low test scores.  So now they're trying to keep the good things about the school, while raising the scores.  I don't know if they will be successful.

One of the arguments for focusing on the test scores is that life is full of tests.  (This is the argument an administrator told me).  It's true, my school life was full of tests.  I had to take a test for college admission.  I took a test for post graduate admission.  I took a basic math/spelling test to be a temporary secretary back in the 1990s (I got the job despite my spelling errors, more privilege I suppose).

But in my career as an IT professional, I've taken exactly one test.  Maybe I took a personality test when applying for jobs (I don't remember), but only one content based multiple choice test.  And that one test was a fluke (incredibly rare for my field).

So I disagree that tests are a part of life.  They may be a part of academic life, but not a part of life for all fields in the working world.  Most companies have yearly evaluations (or some performance system).  Schools and teachers need outside evaluation.  That's how accountability works.  I'm accountable to my boss and my company.  If I don't do my job by assessment, I get fired.  That's how it works.

I'm not a teacher and I wouldn't dream of being one. It's not my skill set.  It's hard work.  And I challenge anyone who thinks it's easy to try it.  Not everyone can teach successfully.  Not everyone can work in IT or as a chef.

Some politicians imply by their statements (or actions) that any businessperson could teach - or could perhaps be a better teacher than trained teachers. In the next few years, that fallacy of that thought will be apparent.  Allowing an untrained person to teach (or assuming they can teach without any training) is like allowing an untrained mechanic to work on my car, or an untrained nurse to put together my I.V.  What constitutes as training is debatable and something worth discussing.  But assuming anyone can teach without having any idea of subject matter, ways of learning, etc. is ignorant.

How do we independently verify schools and teachers without testing the kids? How do we account for a host of factors that need to be accounted for in that evaluation? What about everything that happens outside of school - which the research shows is a bigger predictor of test scores (and academic success)?

I don't have any answers. I know the system is not working currently.  And I don't know how well children are learning.  Are they being exposed to the wide range of needed skills (in addition to reading and math)?  How do they learn what they want to do as an adult?

And do the teacher's unions and administrators have too much power?

A good public education system has been the foundation of U.S. success.  I know there are ways to reform the system.  But so much seems to hit the law of unintended consequences.  With NCLB, lawmakers wanted to ensure that schools were held accountable.

But what happened is schools started teaching to the test, and teaching to the middle (bubble) kids.  The kids in the middle who can improve, not the very low or very high performers.

I trust the issues will be resolved soon.  I know many kids will succeed no matter what type of education they receive.  And success can be defined very differently.  This issue is not a simple one, and is much more about what type of society we want to be and create than anything else.

Should Romney's religion matter?

Like Gov. Romney, I was born and raised LDS. I didn't have a choice in the matter.

Many people (former mormon or not) are focusing on the religion and its beliefs. It's true that some parts of the mormon faith are secret. Some parts of its history shock adults raised in the mormon faith.

While I have many disagreements with my former religion, I'm still not sold on the notion that faith is a critical part of the U.S. presidency.

Richard Nixon, for example, was a Quaker. I am hard-pressed to find any correlation between his Quaker faith and actions in his presidency.

And former president Bill Clinton was raised a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist are a conservative sect, one that voted to have women submit to their husbands. Pres. Clinton and President Carter worked with a new Baptist discussion in 2006 - 2008 to move towards a more open, compassionate Baptist ministry (away from the conservative Southern Baptists).

A person's character is an important part of their candidacy and presidency. What they have done is very important. Despite vocal indications to the contrary, most of what presidents have done over the past fifty years has been about politics, growth, defense, education.

I'm reminded of the international funding for birth control and abortion. The day after a Republican president is sworn in, they cut the funding. The day after a Democrat is sworn in, they re-instate the funding. That's politics, pure and simple.

So religion becomes a side item. It reminds me of the intense scrutiny of the president's wives/spouses and children. In the end, the character of a president's family has even less to do with the presidency itself than religion does.

And that's why I'm not sure how much control a president has. They have some control, to be sure. They set direction, suggest policy, etc. But in the end, every president is constrained by the checks and balances.

I read both Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope. At first I couldn't believe that the establishment was allowing someone like Barack Obama to run.

Now, I look back on what he's been able to accomplish in his presidency (particularly compared with those two books). Honestly, not much of what he set out to do.

The difference is, I don't blame him for that. The same thing happened to George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It's true that each person had many decisions that were their own, some that I vehemently disagree with. But overall, presidents get credit when things go right, and blame when they go wrong.

Back to Romney, four years ago I wrote that I understood why he didn't want to answer questions about mormonism. I stand by that, four years later. Religion can be a factor in deciding the presidency and presidential candidates, but it shouldn't be the only factor.

Presidents can talk a good game, but in the end it's much more complicated than simple character or drive.

Rebuilding Haiti

There are a few other things I want to blog about - but the poverty in Haiti is what I'm thinking about this morning.  I hope my readers will send donations to the charities of their choice.  I try not to write usually about things in the news, but I thought I would make an exception.

I've read two books that revealed some of what life in Haiti was and is like.  The first is this book, Bury the Chains.I hadn't realized much of the history surrounding the slave trade and the eventual abolition of slavery in the Caribbean.  This book is highly recommended, well written and moving.

One of the things I remember however, is that the governance of Haiti was an experiment.  As the wikipedia entry suggests - it is the second oldest republic in the Western Hemisphere.  But from that beginning, they have had a history of dictators and instability.  The country was freed by France in the early nineteenth century - but the people remained poor and uneducated.  Before the slaves were freed, some of the only education they received was through churches and religions. Before liberation, teaching a slave to read (even the bible)  was a punishable offense.

 So this country (like many others) has a history of slavery, and all the legacies that provides.  They started out on the wrong foot - four steps behind.   Without an educated populace, divided into the have's and have not's. 

I wrote about Rick Bragg's All Over But the Shoutin' here.  He spent time in Haiti in 1994, and he observed that although it was a very different place from the South of his childhood - he said "poverty is the same".  Bragg's mother had picked cotton to feed her sons.

His observation surprised me, because Haiti and rural Alabama seem like such radically different places.  But it's true - when people are just trying to survive, provide for their families, find food,etc. - there is much in common. The surroundings are different, but the struggle is the same.

Natural disasters will always happen - they're like death and taxes.  It seems to me that some places have more infrastructure and resources to deal with them.  I hope that with some of the relief being provided for the Haitian people to survive - some resources will also help them rebuild.

Less is More

I was at the grocery store the other day when I saw a great price on my favorite carbonated beverage. 

Sure, I should drink less of this particular beverage, but that's not one of my new year's resolutions.  This year anyway...

The price was about two dollars better than usual.  Upon further inspection - I figured out just why the soda was cheaper. 

I wonder how many people noticed that four cans were missing. 

It was simply strange to see what was a classic (24 cans) that has moved to 20. Because in the end,  that's the way inflation has taken us...we know the prices we want to spend, and what we get for those prices - we're not as concerned with. 

My book club recently read A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini.  Set in war torn Afganistan, I found it was an especially sad novel.  I think it was easier for me, knowing when I started the novel that it was going to be sad and heart-wrenching. 

Throughout the novel, I kept thinking "Can it get any worse for the two main female characters?"  And, yes, it could.  Life got worse particularly as the Taliban came into power.  At one point, the two lead characters, Mariam and Laila, tried to escape their abusive husband. But they couldn't leave Afganistan, as two women, because there wasn't a man with them.  They were returned by the Taliban to the husband, who almost killed both of them (including the young daughter) for trying to leave.

The book was so hopeless, it almost seemed like a propaganda piece.   But it's not as if the reports of the life of women under the regime of the Taliban were untrue - women unable to find a hospital to give birth in - giving birth under squalid and inhumane circumstances.  The thought of the people of Afganistan wanting to go back to that situation gives me pause. 

I, for one, certainly do not believe the U.S. needs to be the world's police force, or needs to rescue people in these countries. 

With that said, it seems deplorable that anyone should have to live in such conditions (as described in this novel).  And I have to agree that if we (as a nation) create a mess, we should help clean it up - to make things right where possible, within reason. It is, of course, very complicated and complex.  I know that many of my readers may disagree with me, and I respect that we disagree on this issue (sending more troops to Afganistan, or being there in the first place).  I'm not even sure that sending additional troops is the "right" solution. 

We read a lot of books of people and families without hope in my book club.  Some set in the U.S., some set in other countries (surprisingly or not, the description of poverty and hunger remains very similar).  In all the novels and memoirs, the common thread of hope was education. 

In each work, the main character(s) had one (or more) teachers who took an interest.  The teachers (or a muslim cleric in the case of A Thousand Splendid Suns) inspired them to love learning, and to escape their circumstances.  In each case, the teachers gave the students hope.

I know it's a few weeks after Thanksgiving, and most people have moved on from their lists of gratitude.  But I, personally, am grateful for teachers and educators.  Those who inspire a love of learning, or simply give hope where there was none. 

Frost/Nixon

Former President Richard Nixon is not really a controversial figure - as he's universally criticized. The criticism comes from both the left and the right. What seems to be more rare is someone who sees him as a flawed or tragic figure.

I recently watched Frost/Nixon. I had remembered my parents' opinions about Nixon, and other observations I heard over the years from various adults, teachers, community leaders.

What shocked and surprised me (after watching the film) was President Nixon's arrogance. And his defense of his behavior reminded me of the past royal "divine right of kings". So it's no wonder that a country built on opposition to monarchy would react so strongly to such behavior from its president.

Nixon's defense was that the president should be able to do anything - because they were the president. A turning point in the interview was when confronted with newsreels and the damage done in Cambodia - Pres. Nixon asserted "We should have gone into Cambodia earlier!" He wouldn't/couldn't admit that his decision was a mistake - or that it may have led to the regime of Pol Pot (a horrible dictator/totalitarian regime).

So I believe it's always interesting to hear a person's defense of their own wrongdoing.

I appreciated the movie because I thought I knew a lot about the controversy, I thought I knew of the events surrounding Watergate. I had read "All the President's Men", and I thought I knew most of the characters. I think I forgot just how angry and disappointed so many Americans were in the cover-up of Watergate, and how self-righteous Nixon could be. That he would claim to be a victim instead of admitting fault.



What struck me after watching the film was the reminder that in every situation, particularly political situations, people will argue for and against. What remains important (even critical) is to weigh the information and evaluate what we know in terms of facts. And being willing to change our minds about what we hear - when there is new evidence either way.

I did appreciate at one point in the interview (I'm assuming this happened in the actual interviews), he (Nixon) admitted that his actions might have hurt the American people and damaged their faith in their government.

Also, no matter what a person's crimes, to remember them with compassion - or at least as much compassion as we can muster.

It's not that we have to approve of what they did or forget what happened. But to remember that each human deserves some modicum of respect.

And just as one of the researchers (who had written two books scathingly critical of Pres. Nixon) was in a situation where he had to shake Nixon's hand - sometimes we are caught in a web of social standards and niceties. Sometimes we are not in control - just as a leader is not completely in control. It's a fact we/people tend to forget - it's nice to blame an individual for everything that happens - but that's not always the whole story.

It's strange to have some sympathy for Nixon, but after watching the film, I find I do have some sympathy for him. Perhaps that shows the genius of the play and the movie - and why it garnered so many Academy award nods.

Insider Trading

Some years ago, I saw this program on PBS about the dot com bubble. I had worked for a dot com start up, so I was fascinated by the notion of a bubble.

If memory serves, one of the people interviewed was the grandson of a "insider" from the 1920s. He explained how his grandfather (and his associates) would manipulate the stock prices of various companies. They would literally call or write one another the day before a major change - a change in management, or when they would be selling their shares. The insider would then be able to sell high, as opposed to what the everyday investor was forced to do (sell at the market price).

The most important note here is that this was legal. The ethics and morality can be debated. Insider trading was above board and perfectly legal prior to this piece of legislation (from my understanding). A select group of people made an awful lot of money, while many others lost millions.

I admit that I can sympathize with my libertarian or traditional small government Republican friends. I believe strongly in moderation - some governmental and regulatory reform can be a good thing. There have to be some checks on the expansion of government.

I'm not sure where the line should be for governmental oversight of financial institutions and the stock market. But I disagree strongly that some oversight and rules are harmful or unnecessary. Some rules and regulation can indeed be a good thing, and protect the small time investor from fraudulent behavior.

I'm reminded of an unofficial football game my husband's fraternity played in college (that's another story). They (the anti-fraternity fraternity my husband belonged too) were playing the soccer player fraternity and losing miserably. My husband suggested they try the "flying wedge" formation - which, not surprisingly worked (but is completely illegal by almost all football regulations). Without a referee (or someone who had studied illegal football moves) they got away with it.

What we want are the right kind of rules, the appropriate balance of regulation where people and companies are free to grow and do business in good faith. But at the same time, regulation should protect the majority of Americans from underhanded dealings and unclear playing rules.

Paying the problems to go away...

I grew up in a majority Roman Catholic suburb. I didn't realize this until I got older - how many of my friends were active Catholics. It just never came up in conversation.

I remember around the age of 14 it was someone's idea (a youth leader? the mormon bishop??) to go door to door handing out books of mormon (who knows what the plural is) in one of the wealthier adjoining suburbs. The members of our ward were from around eight different suburbs in the surrounding area - the location selected was close to my parents home and actually close to my high school. Again, I think this was just a coincidence.

Caroling was actually a common activity - we would carol at nursing homes fairly regularly. So caroling and handing out books of mormon was not that unusual. At least, it didn't seem unusual to me at the time.

People who would answer the door had different reactions - as you might expect.

Yet the reaction that stands out in my mind was a gentleman who kept exclaiming "Great! Great!" and then "How much do you want"? He then got out his checkbook - trying to write us a check for whatever organization we were with. He also seemed sort of hyper - jumping around for some reason.

We had to explain, no, we're just here caroling and want to give you this "other testament of Christ". Later we all chuckled to ourselves - silly man! Thinking we only wanted money! No doubt there are random bands of Catholic high school students who roam suburbs asking for donations.

I just remember the distinct impression that he was trying to pay us to go away.

Also thinking - maybe my religion IS a little odd - and not odd in a good way.

To bring this back to the present, I do want to give our current president a chance, and our current congress a chance. I do believe we can find a solution that will work for our country - and do some good for the environment in the process.

There's just a small voice in the back of my head that remembers the wealthy man trying to pay problems to go away. Life is just not that simple sometimes.

The Past Informing the Present

As an amateur historian, I find the study of the past fascinating. But the question - how do we let the past inform the present is an incredibly difficult one. I've found it has to be a balance. We have to be aware of the past to shape our understanding and current decisions. But we can't assume that the past will always predict (without error)what may happen in the future.

I've found this to be a sticking point both for interpersonal relationships and larger
political/international issues or conflicts. An adult can't act solely in a vacuum - they have to be concerned with safety. This includes personal safety. On the other hand, a person can assume there will be pitfalls at every turn - when there may not be. Or that some sort of pre-emptive strike/confrontation is necessary - when it may not be needed.

If we assume no one will ever change, and no situations will ever be bettered - what hope is there? Where does that leave everyone? There are all sorts of possibilities to life, each day. From technology to cures for diseases. New understandings and perspective. I talk a little about my take on victimhood here.

I'm not advocating unreasonable hope here. I'm not even advocating a person should turn the other cheek seven by seventy times. There are all sorts of factors that come into play in every situation - from what a new president will really be able to do to conflicts in the middle east to be-friending someone on a social networking site.

I'm also not suggesting that there will always be miracles - that things will solve
themselves without work either. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la, la, la - I don't see you" isn't always going to work (in fact, it probably won't work. I've tried).

What I'm saying is, humans take risks, each day. Nothing is sure - except change, death and taxes. Everything else is fluid. Life is not simple - I've learned that much in my short time on earth. These issues are not simple. If they were simple - things would actually be pretty boring. There always seems to be a "yes, but..." to many statements.

I just have faith and hope that things will end up how they are supposed to end up.
I do the best I can every day. I try to improve situations that can be bettered - with regard to my own health and safety (and respecting other people's boundaries). This year, I'm going to try and take risks, each day. The risk may just be a small step of recycling my diet coke cans - but I'll try to take it just the same.

But I'm also realistic - many situations don't change, many people don't change - and human nature will probably remain the same - throughout my lifetime.

So - how have things changed over time for you? Has your understanding of things changed? Are there things with simpler solutions than you thought? Where do you think the past should stand in predicting yours (or others or geopolitical) behavior?

Question for candidates

This is the end of the questions - for now! If you would still like to ask me questions, please feel free to. The original post is here.

Well, news flash to anyone who has been living under a rock for the past week - the U.S. election is OVER. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of issues out there though that are pretty d*mn important. Sometimes it seems like as Americans, we only pay attention every four years to our elected officials. I disagree with this strongly, and I know many of the blogs I read also disagree with this strongly. I just wanted to point out that no matter WHO is in office, each of us is responsible for our piece of citizenry. (I.e., ourselves, jury duty, voting, paying attention to what's going on, etc.) Voting every four years does not get you off of the hook!

So, with that said - my issue is pretty simple. There are lots of questions I would like to ask candidates for office, but this is the one I thought of immediately. Some of those other questions, the ecomony, the war(s), gun control, infrastructure - they've been asked and answered. Well, answered by politicians, which is something else entirely.

I never heard good answers to questions about providing expanded access to birth control for all Americans. Where do the candidates stand on this issue, and how will they work to expand this access? Please see my post here. Things like personal responsibility are just as important - the "lead a horse to water" saying comes to mind.

Yet it seems to me that we as a society would be better off by helping people help themselves. This is my small question about how we could do that.

I hope both political parties are paying attention this year

I am not a political blogger. I have opinions on U.S. political matters but for the most part, I'll leave the political positions to others. I will say this.

I vote. I study the candidates and the issues before I vote. I vote in elections where the only people on the ballot are those running for the school board.

One of these years (when my kids are older) I'll start volunteering at the polling places. Although I disagree with many things about my representative democracy, I take my place in it very seriously.

With that said, as a former history major, I hope that the two major U.S. political parties are paying attention. This year, both presidential candidates and their families (for the first time) are really starting to look more like the majority of Americans. Of course there could be more women and more people of color - but I think the diversity is more obvious than ever.

My hope is that this trend continues. Families are increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial. Women are clearly competing in the political arena and have proven they can be strong leaders. One candidate, Senator Clinton, did not receive her party's nomination this year. That doesn't mean that the Democrats should stop trying to find women candidates.

I've firmly believed, for some time now, that our elected officials should reflect the makeup of their constituents. The officials should not only reflect the ethnic (and gender) diversity of their districts, but also the socio-economic status. Like most Americans, I have a hard time relating to a candidate from a trust fund - someone who has never had to work in food service, know what it means to be hungry, know what it means to not be able to afford something.

It should go without saying that I believe, in the end, it's the issues that matter the most.

I refuse to vote for a candidate solely based on their gender, socio-economic background, religious or ethnic makeup. Positions on the issues (and voting records) are just as important as any of those factors. And, as unpopular as this statement might be, the congressional and local elections are just as important as the presidential elections in moving forward.

So I hope that both major political parties are listening. The reason that everyone is thrilled about this election is that we hope to get rid of some of the monotony - on both sides of the aisle.

I think we've had plenty of white male candidates from Massachusetts and Texas.

This country is much larger (and more diverse) than that. We're not all descended from ancestors who came to this country on the Mayflower. We can't all afford to attend Harvard or Yale law school. Some of us still can't get a cab in New York City. So bravo to both parties (I know some of the strong Dems and Republicans will disagree with my take on the opposite party. That's fine. I'm not trying to sway anyone's vote here).

No matter what the outcome this November, keep up the trend.

politics

We've been getting quite a few pieces of political mail recently.

It's always been a trickle, but it's getting rather annoying.

Of course we recycle it all.

Still, I started thinking. Why can't some fellow enlightened voters get on some sort of "Do not mail" list? I would happily go online and sign up for this. I would even be willing to sign up on a website for each individual politician running for office. They would (of course) not be able to sell the addresses.

I am that serious about not wanting this junk mail. It would be an "opt out" option.

As in, I am following the issues of this election.

I know what your position are before I enter the voting booth. I know what your background and experience is.

That mailer - the one with you surrounded by children or at a campaign rally?

It's not going to sway my decision. Why not save your money and the environment?

Retire with Dignity

Voting attendance for Congress by state

Part of the reason I bring this issue up is that my current representative in congress has missed over 10% of the votes in the House. They are on medical leave.

I certainly can understand being on medical leave (having been on medical leave recently myself). And I think that it's not unreasonable to have a job waiting for you when you return from medical leave.

But when your job is in the US Congress, and the voting majority is so close, more is at stake. You are representing thousands of voters who expect you to make your voice heard with legislation. I am almost certain there are votes on the War in Iraq and countless other important issues that they have missed.

It's no wonder that many Americans (particularly those my age) are disaffected. If I didn't show up to my job one day out of every ten, I might be out of a job.

But my representative has served many terms. They keep running for office and keep getting re-elected. I think at one point, they were probably a good representative for this community. But even in this last election, the other party almost had a majority. It's clear that if someone doesn't step in, my current rep may soon be out of a job and someone from another party in their place (which may or may not be a good thing).

Why does this person stay? It's hard to say. If someone resigns due to medical reasons, a person from a different party could appoint the successor. And most representatives and their parties are loathe to give that advantage to their opponents. The solution (which isn't a solution) is that you have people who may not be able to leave a hospital bed but are still on the rolls of Congress. Sure, everyone gets ill and has emergencies. But you need to take a hard look at your record and start admitting if it's time to retire - to let someone else serve who can vote when needed.

And sadly, some of these people know they will not be able to serve a full term in the US House or Senate, yet run for office anyway. I'm not sure if that's because of name recognition, or everyone in their immediate party wants to show loyalty (and will not tell a 85 year old party boss it's time to hang up their gloves).

It just seems time to change this system. If it requires a Constitutional amendment, so be it. I don't know if a solution is to have a state party committee appoint a successor when someone resigns - and hold a special election. Many people would cry foul at this suggestion, as it hearkens back to the bad old days when elections were decided in smoky back rooms. But if the party decides who replaces the leaving representative, perhaps the person will be more willing to consider retiring with honor.

The reality is, we have a two party system in the US. Right or wrong, that's the way it is. We need to have representatives serving the country, not hanging on to a seat or an idea if they're not physically or mentally up to the challenge. Yet no one seems willing to tell an incumbent it's time to let someone else have a turn. And with the current system, no one will retire if they don't trust the person who is supposed to appoint their replacement.