Lincoln - Douglas Debate (I think)

Alas! I missed it and I was so looking forward to seeing Huntsman display his considerable foreign policy credentials. There was a live feed on-line and a promise to be re-broadcast on C-Span at 8pm EST.  I figured I could watch in on TV so never bothered with the on-line feed.

From the reviews I've read so far, it was a success, but less than a reak debate.  Most reviews  were positive for both participants and happy that they were allowed to voice their policy stances unencumbered by 1.5 minute time limits and the pesky "gotcha" questions from journalists.

Huntsman had much to gain, but Gingrich was apparently generous; they were both firm yet civil and added some humor;  it was a good forum, most reviewers said (with one expection: Molly Ball from The Atlantic who called it "the debate that wasn't," or something like that.)

I was hoping the meeting might bring Huntsman out of obscurity and up in the polls, especially in New Hampshire where he apparently has good numbers anyway.  Some commentators believe his success in New Hampshire could hurt Romney and that would be good for Gingrich as well.

My question is:  what happened to the C-Span re-broadcast? 

The GOP's Only Reasonable Choice.

Jon Huntsman was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria this morning on CNN and I was very impressed.

This seems to me to be the only reasonable choice for a presidential nominee in the entire GOP stable of candidates outside of Ron Paul. If I were a Republican (which i’m not) i’d be supporting either Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul for the nomination for president, but since Paul is outside the mainstream, even though he appeals to a lot of us independents, i would have to favor Huntsman for nominee.


Dr. Paul certainly has his following though. I don’t agree with all of his philosophy, but I admire his consistency, his passion and his impatience with the greed in our government. He’s against sticking our noses in other countries and fighting wars we don’t belong in.

Mitt Romney is a little too oily for me and too eager to please whatever audience he’s in front of, even though I’m sure he’s a fine family man and loving father. But the voters are wary of him.

Newt Gingrich is by far too unpredictable and arrogant for my taste; sure he’s been in government for decades, but he’s a slippery ol' gas bag.  And he will lose in any debate with President Obama because of his off the cuff carelessness. Not only that, but imagine the two of them together on stage:  Obama’s cool, svelte demeanor next to Newt’s over the belt paunchiness. It may not be fair, but appearance made the difference in the Kennedy - Nixon debate in 1960. 

I admire Michelle Bachman, not for what she professes but for her incredible audacity. I like her gutsiness and her fortitude in holding her own, debate after debate, against all that testosterone on stage. Still, not a chance at the nomination.

Rick Perry has embarrassed himself to the point where I’m beginning to feel sorry for him. His support is dwindling.

Ah yes, and then there’s Rick Santorum about whom I have really nothing to say.

So if the Republicans want a chance at the Whitehouse in 2012 they had better start looking for a viable candidate. Jon Huntsman is their best bet to win.

Huntsman is an intelligent man, a former governor, a statesman, having served as ambassador to China and Singapore. He is moderate and broad-minded, which appears to be his problem with the tea party people – far too reasonable, too well spoken, much too intelligent.  He's in favor of term limits and believes in the science behind environmental issues and he's doing well in New Hampshire.

Above all, Jon Huntsman handles himself well, does not pander, did not sign Grover Norquist’s demeaning and humiliating tax pledge and refuses to kiss the ring on Donald Trump’s hand by attending the two-person debate at Trump’s request.

It will be interesting to see how he and Newt fare on the stage Monday night in what has been described as the first Lincoln-Douglas debate of the season.

I will be watching.  Will you?

Slices of Life

In the New Mexico desert, the ruins sprawled as they had for centuries, loose and broken like carelessly discarded baubles in the sand, ancient products from the sweat of skilled masons who had produced them a millennia before.  The people -- they were called the Anasazi -- had wandered off somewhere between the tenth and twelfth centuries to integrate with other Pueblo cultures of the southwest, but their ancestors remained here, buried in the red earth and ancient volcanic eruptions.  The Anasazi: the ancient ones.

They entered the canyon northeast of Pueblo Bonito but he was moving very quickly, making it difficult for her to keep up. He walked west, his eyes focused on something ahead, something she could not see.  The hot winds blew down the mountains in an inverted arc while the sun toasted them as brown as the forgotten race who lived there.  She followed him, chattering now and then, wanting attention but getting none.  She ran ahead, climbing the walls as he passed by, poking her head through windows and doorways, then jumping down in front of him.  She clowned from the stone tops and occasionally he'd smile indulgently but then continued on his pilgrimage, his face stern and opaque.  He trudged off towards Bonito, glancing around now and then to see that she was following.

They wandered through the multi-dwelling structures and could almost smell the dung-fueled fires whose smudges were captured in the petrified remains.  They examined the low-slung passage ways, the cooking hearths, kivas and sleeping stations, all in a remarkable state of preservation, efficiently designed by the strongly matrilineal society with an eye towards function.  He ran to a pile of rocks and scrambled to the top, searching the plains, his hand shading his eyes from the final blast of a dying sun, a gesture reminding her of those who had come before.

"What is it?" she asked.

"I can feel it."

"Feel what?"

"Like a. . .voice. . .like a message. . ."

"That's not funny," she said.  "Please come down."

She looked up and waited.  There was no laughter, no crooked grin.  The winds blew and still she waited for the insult, the irreverent epithet.  But he stood on this rock, face flushed, the muscled rib cage marking cadence with his breath, looking west towards the hills.  She was sorry now that they had come.  She felt as abandoned as the ruins surrounding them.  

Finally he slid down, his face red from the heat, and caked with clay.  He was tired now and they both smelled of sweat.  "Come on," he said and took her hand and they walked to the lee side of one of the dwellings.  They lay down in the shade, sharing a single can of Coke between them, listening to the voices of generations: ancestors, progenitors, the mothers of races.

From "Voices" Copyright (c) 2011 by Sue McGhee

Newt's Approach to Solving Poverty

Most people who know me, know that Newt Gingrich is my least favorite of the current stable of GOP candidates, but for a multitude of reasons that are not associated with the flap over his recent statement about putting poor children to work.

I think he's right on this issue,  but his solution applies to all of us, not just the destitute and therefore, could have been worded a bit more artfully.

He's right because all children should have a model, parental or otherwise, of an adult who works to earn a living or is looking for work,  or otherwise contributes by working at something that helps family and community.  I know about the jobless rate and how hard it is to get a job.  I'm sure it's easy to become inured to not working for months and months, becoming disillusioned and essentially giving up.

That's why his idea is a good one!  Allow children of non-working families--of all families--to learn what it's like to earn a dollar by their own labor and enjoy that heady sense of empowerment that comes from feeling truly worthy (worth-y).

Sure, these kids could assist in the school library as he said. That would teach them not just responsibility but would instill in them a love for books and reading, yes even perhaps a thirst for knowledge (and therefore lead to higher degrees of learning). That's not such an outlandish idea, is it?   Helping out in the school cafeteria, even cleaning toilets isn't out of the question either. 

This is not a class issue;  it's about a whole attitude that is claiming the work ethic with which many of us were raised.  I baby sat, delivered local papers, worked in a drug store after school -- I did many things in order to have my own money.  But that was because I was encouraged to do so by my parents.

When people have children, their responsibility is to teach them responsibility. And the most effective way of teaching is through example.  I think what he's saying is that if they don't always have that example to learn from, give them another way out. 

I think his idea could solve several inter-related problems that appear to be unsolvable:  if more of our teens worked at menial jobs (busing tables, washing dishes, delivering papers, caddying for golfers, waiting on tables as I did) even working in the fields during summer vacation as my husband did, there would be fewer illegals filling those roles.

I could never agree that our child labor laws are  "truly stupid" as Newt said.  They were put in place for good reason -- to prevent children from working in the fields instead of going to school, and we don't want that.  Obviously, we want our kids educated and that is why his idea appeals to me. It could become an adjunct to public education whose main benefit accrues to the kids, teaching them self-reliance, independence, the work ethic, social interaction, putting a few dollars in their pockets, reducing petty theft, dealing drugs and perhaps making a small dent in the economy.

I'm not talking about putting nine-year olds to work as he was. I'm saying that kids of all ages could learn from a tiered (graduated)  program promoted by the schools that would allow school children of all ages to benefit.  I see it as comparable to the allowances our parents gave us for taking care of a pet and cleaning our rooms and mowing the lawn.  Think about it. 

Is it possible that the "idea man" from those days as house "whip" has actually come up with a decent idea!

(See my rant "Where's the Sacrifice?" way back on May 16 in which I vent my spleen on related issues). 

The Elements of Story

Years ago, in my English classes, we learned that Story = Protagonist + Antagonist resulting in Conflict.

Conflict creates rising Tension ultimately resulting in Climax and (hopefully) Resolution. With resolution comes Denouement or gradual reduction in tension.

These are all arbitrary guidelines for the beginning writer at best and in my writing, they’ve been thrown out the door a number of times.

But as Kristen Lamb says in her blog today, “Antagonists – the Alpha and the Omega of Story,” http://warriorwriters.wordpress.com/ the antagonist of a novel has to be well thought out in order to create and maintain the kind of tension for a really good story—not just the proverbial “whodunit,” either. She maintains the writer should spend plenty of time in her initial structuring of the book on that particular element of story with a definitive profile and the full development of the character. It makes sense and since I don’t have the experience behind me that she does, I have to say, okay, Kristen, I’ll give it a try. But what happens when your novel takes a side trip from your planned itinerary and you have to go back, pick up and try again? I was not able to control that.

In my novel, “When the Eagle Flies with the Condor,” the antagonist is not a person, but a situation arising out of emotions such as feelings of abandonment, estrangement and love; similarly, a powerful antagonist can be a storm, a flood, the summit of a major mountain, a family disgrace, a mental disability -- war. In my book, the antagonist is unrequited love. Sound corny? Not when the love is between brother and sister. Their love is more representative of “agape” (from the Greek) than romantic, but the point is, it wasn’t planned that way. It happened and I wanted to be as honest as I knew how to be, thus allowing the antagonist to become whatever it needed to become.

I do agree that having a good idea of what your story is going to say and knowing how it will end is one way to write a novel. But I also agree (with one of the commentators on the blog) that allowing the mind to soar uncontrolled into unexpected regions can be very satisfying and productive and end up perhaps being more. . . well. . . maybe. . . less -- formulaic?  It's my understanding this is called the "panser" method rather than the "plotter" method.  You get the idea. 

Remembering JFK

Each year during the past forty eight, there has been less and less said about JFK's assassination. It appalls me, but I understand that most of us living today weren't even born in 1963.

I was kind of in love with Kennedy though I was still too young to have voted for him. His legacy today, however, is laced with a kind of blandness as though aside from his youth, his wit and charisma, his attractive young family, he really accomplished very little. This is blatantly wrong.

Kennedy's legacy grows with each passing year even though the tributes wane, (Chris Matthews’ new book, “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” notwithstanding which documents true heroism during WWII in the Pacific Theatre). True, he allowed Khrushchev to get the upper hand (at first). Also true, that the Berlin Wall went up during his tenure. Indeed, he resided over the Bay of Pigs fiasco and we're all aware of his "indiscretions." But I believe today, that had that young president lived, he might have been one of our greatest leaders. Remember, he had only a thousand days in which to accomplish his agenda.

The thing I remember about the Kennedy administration was the sense of idealism and public service it inspired in us, more than I have seen since, even though President Obama came close in 2008. We wanted to serve back then; patriotism was not just a word being thrown back in our faces when we disagreed with government policies, it was a conviction. We believed passionately and reacted fervently.

As for his accomplishments, take note: the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, Civil Rights legislation, the Space Program and the introduction of the Green Berets. His major accomplishment, however, was a tight and tense little psychological drama between the USA and the USSR known as The Cuban Missile Crisis, which, without the successful maneuvering of the Kennedys, might have left the world in a state of nuclear disaster.

I guess his potential greatness will never be known which is what happens when someone takes you out before your time. But I think when all is said and done, his star will ultimately shine as one of the brightest. And though there seem to be few tributes today, JFK, this forty-eighth anniversary of your assassination, I remember. And I am grateful to have learned my political abc's under your leadership. You never blamed others for your mistakes -- you took your lumps with calm and grace. How refreshing it would be if our leaders today would learn to do the same

Tidal Raves

“Confluential” is an intriguing word and defined in the first book of Gary Smith’s Trilogy, “Subjected.” http://www.gfsmithbooks.com/

Briefly, as explained by his character in the book, it expresses the coming together of various elements, energies and ideas (as in the confluence of rivers) which subsequently influence our thinking and motivations.

The word is apt in my own experience and I can easily apply it (at least spiritually) to my own personal belief system, ground out through the years from Christian dogma (both Catholic and Protestant), Buddhist study, new-age awareness (the law of attraction), Vision Quests,  Quantum Theory, Yoga and Ayurveda.

Have you ever felt the rush of emotion that comes when you visit an historic site for the first time and you feel all goose pimply with awareness? That this is not a new experience, but . . . memory? That you are filled with the sense of history there, the feel of another time, another life, another self? To me this is only one indication that we’ve lived more than this life and that we’ve actually been to this place before. Or, that we have a spiritual connection to the people who once inhabited such a place -- before. I really doubt there are very many of us who haven’t experienced that feeling at one time or another. Those who deny it have probably experienced it but simply ignored it because they are not open to an “irrational” experience.

Since it’s happened to me many times, I tend to believe that feeling of awareness has meaning. I’m not sure this “awareness” is the same as faith; faith is an amorphous term. Faith in what? In an all-knowing, Christian God, faith in oneself, faith in the inherent goodness of humanity, faith that we are here for a purpose? Or faith that we are all connected and on a space-time continuum that allows us to experience past present and future all at once—and because of our "awareness," are much more than a glob of particles that swirled around our universe eons after the big bang in a way scientists are still trying to comprehend.

My faith is pretty simple: that we are eternal beings and that we are all part of the same ONE which is God, thus becoming God or god-like in our own manifestations. We are like (individual) drops in the sea of a vast unknown cosmos made up of multiple universes and multiple selves. Alternate selves populate alternate universes. And we are now living multiple existences with multiple ideas and multiple outcomes resulting from multiple decisions.

Which brings me back to this idea of the “confluential.”

Our lives are filled with the unknown and the unknown can be difficult and frightening. Being thrown about at life’s confluence of all these choices makes us uncertain about the direction the turbulence will carry us. But this is our opportunity – exposure to new places and new ideas makes us stronger and gradually begins to reach inside and expand our awareness. We begin to wonder if those eerie moments of recognition or familiarity-- are real. We grow; we learn; we expand. That is where I am in this moment of my infinity. I’ve always been here, but was not always “aware” of being here. And I will continue to be here, hanging on to whatever will keep me from going down the drain of arrogance and certitude, watching the tide recede after a tsunami. Yes, it’s scary; it’s an adventure to be sure, but it’s an adventure for the adventurous that I’m not eager to let go of.   I call it life.

This blog originally appeared @ http://www.gfsmithbooks.com/  and has been slightly revised since then. sm