Help

We really have no idea how this looming disaster is going to play out, but we used to say that those who are not angry were not paying attention; nowadays it's those who are not scared who are not paying attention. The hex cast by those voodoo economics of which daddy Bush so presciently spoke is now casting its inevitable pall over the entire nation and the world like a vast volcanic cloud.

In this context, it's hard to imagine that Sarah Palin will be able to recover from her disastrous recent appearances, morphing overnight into an eloquent and knowledgeable spokesperson for the Republican ticket and Republican policies. It's hard to imagine that John McCain himself will be able to redeem his wild gambles on matters of grave importance, and the inanities of his public utterances. It did not help him any yesterday, to intone in a sepulchral voice that this is no time for blame and in the very same breath to blame "Barack Obama and his allies in Congress" for the failure of the economic rescue plan. He just looked old and sadly out of touch with the realities of the situation.

No, short of an "October surprise"--whether real or fabricated--on the part of international terrorists, McCain has done everything he can to ensure his loss to Obama in November. He doesn't need any further help from us.

So it's time to help Obama. How? I think first by each of us putting our narrow interests aside for long enough to propel him into the Oval Office. The likes of Bill Maher and Ralph Nader and Michael Moore need to stop trash-taking him even when they think he deserves it. Bill Clinton needs to step out of his childish pique and speak out whole-heartedly against the policies that have come close to destroying everything he once claimed to stand for. I might agree with some of these people's arguments, but this is no time to spread dissent. The moment is simply too important--and I do believe that there's a difference between the two candidates and their policies. It's not just a matter of character. I hesitate in saying this, but I truly think that now is instead the time to speak with a single voice, even if it means subordinating our own to one with which we don't necessarily quite exactly agree in its every nuance and implication. We can cavil a bit later.

Next, I think we should allow McCain and Palin the privilege of destroying themselves and each other. The best we can do is treat them as irrelevant--as they truly are. They are doing an excellent job of making fools of themselves--better, in fact, than we could do because they can't blame it on our sexism, or elitism, or intellectualism, or anti-Republican bias. Let them continue down their chosen path to political perdition. Obama's right: we CAN take the high road and still win.

There's plenty to talk about. At the moment, what I'd like to talk about is the admirable calm and the carefully-modulated measured approach with which Obama has handled this entire crisis. Others have pointed out--some critically--that he has not injected himself into the process. Rightly so. He did not belong there. John McCain did not belong there, and won no points for pretending to have powers he simply did not have. He came off weaker for the attempt. As my own financial adviser insisted this morning when I called him (yes, I'm scared!) the financial crisis cannot be solved by the president let alone the candidates for the presidency. It's a matter most efficiently handled by those with the most knowledge and the most expertise, and by the action of the United States Congress--if it finally proves capable of action. Obama did well to stand back, with a certain degree of modesty and a good deal of wisdom.

There's plenty else on the positive side of the ledger, and we can help most by noting it, and broadcasting it by whatever means we have available. I shamed myself a couple of nights ago, at dinner time, by turning two young democratic workers away from my door on the pretext that "I'm doing what I can." I thought first and only about my dinner getting cold. As Ellie pointed out, in her particular wisdom, I should have invited them in, given a few more dollars to the campaign, congratulated them on their good work, and sent them on their way encouraged. It could have been my own daughter that I turned away.

I make this latter comment because I hope that my confession will caution others not to be so fast in rejecting the telephone call and turning campaign workers from the door. It can't hurt to dig into the pocket for those few extra dollars, nor to praise the caller for the good work that they're doing. Please learn from my poor example, and do--and write, and say--the positive thing; anything, to get this man elected, despite those human imperfections he does not deny. We can't continue any further now along this path to insanity and self-destruction.

Rants

My friends are outraged. I thought that today, at the beginning of a new week, I would let them have the floor. They are eloquent in their anger.

My friend Carly, a frequent correspondent on The Buddha Diaries, sends me a forward:

My friend Kirsten, who now lives in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and watches things from afar, sends me her own rant. It's a long one, be patient with it.

And my friend Gary, a Los Angeles-based artist whose mural- and ceiling-painting business takes him frequently to China, writes this colorful piece of invective with his two young sons in mind.

Right Speech? I think each speaks the truth, and I personally find their rage appropriate in the circumstance to which these past years of misguided policy and incompetence have brought us. Judge for yourself...

(I have parked these three pieces for convenience in my other blog, Accidental Dharma, where I still welcome those stories of "gifts wrapped in shit.")

Best in Show: The First Debate

Well, we were all wishing for the slam dunk, weren’t we? For the notoriously temperamental John McCain to explode in a rage or slide into dementia? Didn’t happen. (That piously expressed wish for Teddy Kennedy’s health by John McCain at the beginning, making it sound like the senator was on his deathbed, proved to be no more than another mendacious grab for the bipartisan high ground: it turns out, in this morning’s New York Times, that Kennedy was in hospital only briefly and had returned home to watch the debate on television.)

But the differences between the two candidates, I thought, were clear enough. To use a handy metaphor, what I saw was an aging pit bull and a bright-eyed border collie who knew exactly what he needed to do.

The pit bull (this one sans lipstick) snarled a lot and looked down his nose at lot at his opponent. His tactic was to take hold of an idea (earmarks, anyone? Corruption, greed?) and growl and shake, and growl and shake, and shake and growl… until all the stuffing had come out of the idea and he was left looking kind of foolish with a limp rag between his teeth.

Ah, but the border collie… so smart, so peaceable, so gentle—and yet so persistent and so tough when needed. This one opted for a more complex approach, combining strategy and tactic (and the pit bull said he didn’t understand the difference!) This one was watchful, alert, attentive to his sheep, ranging out with comfortable patience when they strayed to bring them back into the flock and herd them all gently into the pen. I thought of Jasper.

I don’t know which you’d rather have in the Oval Office, the spontaneously lunging pit bull or the patient and quietly reliable border collie. I know which one I want.

In Her Own Words

I will not, surely, transgress the excellent principle of Right Speech nor slander Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, by repeating her own words verbatim. Here she is with Katie Couric, on Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.:

The logistics that we are already suggesting here, not having enough troops in the area right now. The... things like the terrain even in Afghanistan and that border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where, you know, we believe that-- Bin Laden is-- is hiding out right now and... and is still such a leader of this terrorist movement. There... there are many more challenges there. So, again, I believe that... a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq. And as I say, Katie, that we cannot afford to retreat, to withdraw in Iraq. That's not gonna get us any better off in Afghanistan either. And as our leaders are telling us in our military, we do need to ramp it up in Afghanistan, counting on our friends and allies to assist with us there because these terrorists who hate America, they hate what we stand for with the... the freedoms, the democracy, the... the women's rights, the tolerance, they hate what it is that we represent and our allies, too, and our friends, what they represent. If we were... were to allow a stronghold to be captured by these terrorists then the world is in even greater peril than it is today. We cannot afford to lose in Afghanistan.

This makes sense? Or is she simply mangling what Obama has been saying, lo these many months?

Sen. McCop-Out & Gov. Bubblewrap

The cynicism is breathtaking--all the more so for the fact that millions of McCain supporters will praise his wisdom, judgment, and patriotism for offering to sacrifice the great benefits of his first debate with Obama and move it from tomorrow to... October 2, the scheduled date for the Biden-Palin debate, Which would in turn, I can only suppose, be "postponed"?

Convenient?

Here's the question: are we--the electorate and the media who are supposed to keep us informed--going to quietly submit to the McCain's campaign plan to hide the nominee for Vice President of our country from sight and protect her from every legitimate question until after it's too late? So far, they seem to have gotten away with it. The grumblings from press and public have gone ignored or treated with scorn. Those who dare to question Palin's qualifications are brushed off as sexists or bullies--or both. And now the plan's afoot--who can doubt it?--to insulate her even from the scheduled vice-presidential debate.

This is not only about Palin and her qualifications. More importantly, this is about McCain and his judgment. Do we want, in the Oval Office, another man who makes gut-level decisions on important issues and, when pushed, leaps into risks that turn out to be disasters? I say no.

I'm sure that you, as have I, have been recipients of dozens of panicked online forwards begging you to vote on that PBS poll that asks if Sarah Palin is qualified to be Vice President. It seems that right-wing zealots have organized a campaign to activate the Republican "base" to mail in "yes" answers in the attempt to force the issue and prove, in what they surely see as a liberally biased medium, that their candidate is the popular choice.

The first time this thing reached me, I was seduced by the alarm, and went online to vote. The more forwards I received, however, the more it seemed to me that the best response would not have been to participate in the melee, but to ignore it. The poll has become a meaningless morass of unnecessary alarm, and its results are predictably as meaningless as the process. I can't believe, at this juncture, that PBS will want to put out the results without some caveat as to the rampant abuse of their poll on both sides of political spectrum.

There seems to be some small effort in the media to hold Palin's feet to the fire, as well they should be. No one should be given a free pass into the office that leads directly into the Oval Office should accident or illness befall the incumbent. I read today in the New York Times that even Campbell Brown of CNN--not a hotbed of radical journalism--was expressing outrage: "I call upon the McCain campaign," she said, "to stop treating Sarah Palin like she is a delicate flower who will wilt at any moment... For me, it's about accountability." And yes, writes the NYT, "she does think that the McCain campaign is being sexist about Ms. Palin. 'The McCain campaign says that if she were a man, the media would not be treating her this way. So it's fair for me to ask, If she were a man, would they be coddling her this way?'"

It's clear that the McCain campaign wants things both ways, and is thus far successful in getting it. The Obama people are soft-pedaling their approach to Palin, and for good reason: they'll get slapped with the sexist prejudice label as soon as they open their mouths, and that won't help their cause. So it's up to the media to demand accountability on our behalf, and for us to demand no less from our media. Let's be sure we're up to the task.

A Fistful of Bills

Remember my old friend Bill and his notion of Sacred Lifeboats? I was writing about him just a short while ago on The Buddha Diaries, and his conviction that the big boat is sinking, that we need to prepare ourselves for that catastrophe by building our own lifeboats now. By lifeboats, as I understand Bill's thinking, he means small, mutually supportive communities of like-minded people who share values and a commitment to the survival of the human species and the human spirit on this endangered planet.

I was thinking of this old friend Bill as I sat at lunch yesterday with another old friend Bill, Bill Megalos, a documentarian whose films on people of different cultures throughout the world will be familiar to those who watch public television, even though his name might not be. Bill has been traveling the world recently with Prof. Muhammad Yunus whose pioneering work in the field of micro-credit for "leveraging small loans into major social change for impoverished families" earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006; my friend has been privileged to meet numerous world leaders in the company of Yunus, and has developed a new direction of his own. These days, much of his energy goes into teaching, and his goal is to create workshops and schools, especially in poor and underdeveloped countries where control of the media has been restricted to the powerful. In passing on his technical skills and film-making experience to the less privileged, he hopes to empower them to bring change to their communities in ways similar to those effected by Prof. Yunus.

The past ten days are nothing, surely, if not a reinforcement of my first Bill's thinking. He is further along the line than I am--I who believe that we have not yet reached the tipping point, that we can still work to achieve the changes that we need. But the meltdown of the financial markets and its revelation of deep cracks not only in the world-wide credit system but more broadly of the magical thinking that goes into the free market system with its unconscionable exploitation of the planet's resources and a belief in endless "growth." In this context, my second Bill's actions are a positive and constructive move towards a future in which human beings of all classes and cultures are equally empowered to live their lives according to their own values and traditions, and not some version of a terrifyingly global "American dream."

I am encouraged that there are people in America who are thinking in these ways--and of course not only in America. Bill's (the second) good faith is manifest not only in his large scale thinking about global challenges, but in his small-scale actions: for years he has been devoting precious time from his weekends to the needs of the homeless in his home town of Santa Monica. His gift to them is a special one: he cuts their hair. This intensely personal act of compassionate, physical closeness has earned him the lasting affection of people on the streets, who receive too few such gestures in their often desperate lives.

As we finished our lunch and prepared to leave the diner where we had met, we caught a glimpse of another old friend Bill, this one Bill Clinton, being interviewed presumably in connection with the Clinton Global Initiative, set up to support precisely the kind of community action that we're talking about. Seeing the familiar face on the television screen, I couldn't help but have that momentary cringe, recalling the contrast between the Clinton administration's engagement in the world and our current petulant isolationism. I also remembered those FOBs--the friends of Bill--and reflected that I seem to have a collection of OFBs. Old friend Bills.

Which reminded me to make a call this morning about another OFB, to see whether I might go over this afternoon to sit with him a while. This Bill, a physician, a distinguished teacher, and a writer of many articles and books on the important topic of health care provision, is now himself suffering from the early stages of a debilitating disease. It has been too long since I stopped by...

The Many To the Few...

Our friend Nancy is an artist, who heads out from Los Angeles to the country each week for a sheep-herding lesson for her border collie, Jasper. This past weekend, she had him entered in a sheepdog trial--entry-level, as I understood, for the beginners--and was happy to report that he did well in his class. That means, of course, that she did well. Only one snag, she told us: at one point, just as the sheep were about to be herded into the pen, one of her ovine charges decided it was time to lie down and play possum. A moment's panic. All the rest of the flock were behaving according to plan, how to deal with this one recalcitrant beast? It could be a disaster, to have the dog go back to fetch the one and lose the rest of them.

"And then," said Nancy, "I kept hearing my teacher's voice saying, 'The many to the few. The many to the few...'" So that was the solution, to have Jasper bring the whole flock back to surround the one exceptionalist--who then stood up and went along meekly with the gang.

And as she told the story, I could not help but think how relevant it was to our political situation. With those hold-out independents lying there stubbornly in the grass, better for the all rest of us to go back there and work on them through a process of inclusion than to whistle and beckon them impatiently from afar, with the demand that they catch up with us.

Does that work? I thought it was a nice metaphor anyway. Or at least a very nice story.

(To interrupt myself...

... here's an extraordinary piece about the origins of the financial crisis, published in February 2008 on the op-ed page of the Washington Post and authored by then-Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer. This adds new insight into his swift demise--and into the power of the powers-that-be!)

Why Bill Maher Is As Bad As the People He Despises; Or, How to Talk to Independent Voters

I’m honestly getting very tired of the Bill Maher rant. I used to like his show a lot more than I like it now that he uses it as a platform for opinions that are as entrenched and angry as those he opposes. I watched him spar with Andrew Sullivan last week on the subject of religion, and I thought he came off intolerant, snappish, opinionated and quite unwilling to entertain thoughts on the matter other than his own. Maher seems to be one of those who subscribe to the notion that you attack over-the-top rhetoric with over-the-top rhetoric, and routinely castigates Democrats for their failure to share his take-no-prisoners approach.

My own belief is that if you oppose opinionated argument with arguments that are no less opinionated—no matter that I happen to agree with many of them—you succeed only in hardening the position of your opponent. To scorn, to despise, to mock, to dismiss… these tactics are no less arrogant and no less distasteful on one side than they are on the other. To chide Barack Obama and his campaign for not attacking, for not returning brickbat for brickbat is simply to feed the divisiveness, and will disserve both the candidate and, eventually, the country. Obama is right to insist on maintaining, insofar as possible, an even tone. (I thought he did brilliantly on “60 Minutes” last night: a tight, thoughtful, compassionate approach to the problems that face us, a masterful control of his subject matter as he spoke, and an unflappable response to challenging questions. Bravo!)

I don’t personally know many “independents” or “undecideds” who are leaning toward McCain or planning to sit out the election out of Hillary pique, or bias, or genuine or professed uncertainty as to which candidate is better. If I did, I would try to avoid the easy, angry, loaded questions: “Why don’t you want to protect a woman’s right to choose?” Or “How could you think of voting for a man who’s clearly a disciple of Bush and a woman who has no more qualifications than Vanna White?” And so on. There are a million of them and—from my point of view—every one of them is pretty much justified.

But to ask these questions in a way that reveals my own bias, my intolerance, and my indignation at the ignorance of others—the notion that anyone could disagree with my unquestionable wisdom!—is to assure not an open and receptive mind but more defensiveness and indignation in return. If Democrats continue to follow this path of righteousness and blame, they will win no converts among those who still remain to be convinced.

Instead, we should be asking the non-aggressive, open-ended questions: “I understand that you are considering a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. I know that you pride yourself on the independence of your thinking and your fairness, so I’m really interested to know what it is about their policies that you respond to favorably.” Or, “I hear that you have hesitations about Barack Obama. I’ll admit that I myself am quite convinced, but I’m really open to hearing about the things that cause you to hesitate.”

Then, when the answers come back, to ask the next open-ended question, and the next. If you get, “I just think she’s better qualified,” you try, “Okay, I get that. But are you willing to share what you think qualifies her better than, say, Joe Biden?”

I do understand that you’re not going to get through to the great mass of malleable, unthinking minds this way. But there’s just a chance that listening rather than lecturing will help a few people to hear themselves more clearly, and to recognize the weakness in their position—if they are genuinely open to it. The other way, you’ll make no friends and influence nobody. You’ll just make them more angry, more defensive, more righteous in their views. Bill Maher is simply playing to the balcony.

Hypnotized!

But first, speaking of clowns... has anyone else noticed that John McCain is looking more and more like Charlie Chaplin?


Poor Charlie, a lifelong lefty, would be horrified of course. Still, I couldn't help but notice.

So… yesterday, a most interesting experience. Hypnotherapy. I had long ago connected with a fellow Brit, one of those who came to that old college reunion that I hosted, and wrote about, way back in June—or was it July?—and who has chosen this healing art as his third career path. He had offered at that time to give me a session, and yesterday, after a long interval, we finally got around to it.

I was interested primarily in the experience itself. I was hypnotized once before, years ago, when I was trying to give up cigarettes. It didn’t work then. Perhaps the single session was not enough to address a long-ingrained habit. And I have thought about it on and off since, in the context of simply finding another avenue to delve into the core of my being, to further my persistent inquiry into who I am and what on earth I’m doing here on this planet.

It seemed important, however, to find a purpose for the journey, so I opted for an old familiar: the slow, inexorable, and seemingly irreversible expansion of my waistline over the past, well, twenty years, and the accompanying gain in weight. As those who remember the short-lived blog, “A Diet of Choice,” will remember, it has been a losing battle. No matter how many good resolutions I make, no matter how well I know a variety of reliable methods to lose weight, no matter how readily I can identify those foods that do me in (bread, butter and other dairy foods, ice cream… and wine!) I have proved incapable of making the good choices. I eat—and drink wine! Not too much, just a couple of glasses—for comfort. To relieve the stress of everyday life. To distract me from more painful realities.

So there it was. My friend—my hypnotherapist—and I talked these things through for a good long time, laying the groundwork before he went to work on my recalcitrant mind. Then he walked me down, gently, into the recesses of my subconscious, and gently implanted a few sensible notions: to eat when I want; to eat what I want; to eat consciously; and to stop when I’m full. Nothing terribly complicated.

There’s a part of me that naturally wants to resist when I begin to sense that someone else is taking over the controls of my mind; and there’s that other part that sees it as an adventure and wants to surrender to whatever experience might come. On this occasion, the surrender was a little easier than I expected, perhaps because it was established that I was in fact still firmly in control, still balanced on my bike even while I let go of the handlebars, so to speak. I did not feel unsafe. I did not feel submissive, as I feared I might. Instead, I felt totally relaxed—more relaxed than I have felt for a very long time. By-passing a lot of that automatic technical control stuff, I think I went deeper into relaxation, even, than in meditation, where the mind is still (ideally!) alert. It was a little like flying—or how I imagine free flight might be.

And that sense of relaxation persisted. An hour or so later, I took a nap and drifted off into a deep sleep. When I awoke, I was still feeling limp—not fatigued, exactly, but as though all the muscles in my body had agreed just to let go. Even today, I can feel some of that pervasive sense of relaxation in my body—a not unpleasant feeling at all, a kind of remove from the external cares.

And the eating? Well, I have noticed that those useful ideas are still at the forefront of my consciousness as I eat. I hear my inner voice reminding me: eat when you want, eat whatever you want, eat consciously, and stop when you’re full. It’s a persuasive voice. I am, indeed, more conscious as I eat. At breakfast, I was not even tempted by the New York Times, lying by my plate. I chewed twenty times, and tasted the food. At lunch, I felt like a ham and cheese sandwich. I love ham and cheese sandwiches. But I heard the voice as I ate, and before I was halfway through I had decided it was enough; I cut the sandwich in two, and wrapped the other half to put in the refrigerator, ready for a second attack. Instead of a whole apple, as is my wont, I ate just a half. And ate, again, consciously. No newspaper. No crossword. Just me and the munch.

I'll be watching my progress, and perhaps reporting on it from time to time. Has anyone else had the experience of hypnosis? Was it similar to mine?

Bring On the Clowns

I have heard it argued that the clown is the closest we can come to a tragic hero in the modern world, and that farce is as close as we can come to tragedy. In a world inhabited by supreme beings whose omnipresence gave human beings a sense of order and necessity, in other words a rational context for the evidence of disorder everywhere in our lives, the human experience could be explained in the form of tragedy: the murder and mayhem we see everywhere is the expression of the will of the gods, or of God, who can prove our judge as well as our redeemer.

In a world abandoned by the gods—they/he/she left us, remember, with the arrival of the Age of Reason?—such experiences no longer have a “rational” context and appear absurd, accidental, either meaningless or with meanings that remain forever obscured in our limited understanding of the workings of the universe. This is the world of the clown, where chaos and nightmare take the form of punishing events—the exploding taxicab, the brickbat over the head—to which we can respond only with the laugh with which we disguise the inner terror. (I realize that the vast majority of Americans will tell the pollster who asks them that they believe in “God.” I happen to believe—excuse my skepticism—that this is desperation rather than true belief.

These thoughts occasioned by a particularly privileged visit, yesterday afternoon, with the great writer and director, Blake Edwards, whose movies—notably the Pink Panther series, “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” “10,” “S.O.B.”—are classics in anybody’s history of contemporary film. The heroes of Edwards’s movies are often clowns—Inspector Clouseau, of course, is the prime example—whose “tragedy” is found in the fact that they are desperately, futilely trying to make sense of the senselessness around them, to find order in the chaos. We laugh at them out of the knowledge that they are ourselves, and that their frantic actions succeed only in producing more unintended consequences, mor chaos in their lives. We live on the edge of insanity.

Blake Edwards is also an artist, and his artwork was the reason for my visit with him. But our talk seemed especially appropriate in the light of the current political campaign, with all its brickbats and pratfalls, its increasing absurdity, its nightmare implications. Here we are, stuck in the middle of it, disbelieving, trapped… Hasn't this become a Punch and Judy show. Here's Punch, (90% Bush) in a clever image artfully created by a new friend, Water Kerner at lati2d.com ("Latitude," that is)...



As for Judy, the head-basher... well, I'll leave that one to your imagination.

The Lewes Pound

Not, that's not the dog pound. It's the pound sterling. Or something approaching it. Thailand Chani raised an interesting question yesterday in her blog: Does anyone think capitalism is a good thing? I have been wondering the same myself, and it's a good question in view of the economic chaos in which we now find ourselves. The domino-style collapse of major American financial institutions is evidence enough that capitalism is not the invulnerable fortress it was supposed to be.

If capitalism is in crisis, it has been ailing for some time, though the symptoms have been well hidden from general public view. Not a hard trick, perhaps, in a country that appeared to be thriving so well on the system for so many years and became--for the blink of an eye, at least, in the long history of the planet--the top dog in the financial world. But it's pretty clear by now that this situation can't last for very much longer. Capitalism--with the help of more than a little slave labor, let's not forget--produced this country's wealth. Today, under the capitalist system, that wealth is slipping more and more from the hands of the average citizen and into the hands of the corporations and their wealthy beneficiaries. I don't believe it's a "good thing" for the vast majority of people.

By the same token, though, socialism has also showed its weaknesses. I was brought up in the belief that socialism would best serve the interests of the underprivileged and the needy, but it has not worked out the way many hoped it might. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire is evidence enough that this alternative--and rival--to capitalism has also run its course.

I'm thinking more and more small. I was intrigued to hear a report on the BBC World News about the Lewes pound: the little town of Lewes in Sussex, in the south of England, recently took to printing its own money, for use exclusively in its own community, with the idea of stimulating the local economy and keeping the money made and spent by its citizens within the general confines of the town. It might seem a step backward, in a globalized world. But it could also be seen as a step forward, into a future where tight communities become more and more self-sustaining, and self-regulating. Where democracy can be practiced on an intimate scale more successfully than by countries engaged in internecine competition and conflict.

Naive? Perhaps. According to the BBC report, the desired result of keeping local money in circulation locally has been foiled, thus far, because people are buying the Lewes notes and hoarding them for souvenirs or selling them on Ebay. The whole thing reminds me a little of a Peter Sellers movie (remember "The Mouse That Roared"?) But still a nobly eccentric British experiment, and one that stimulates further thought about the twentieth century financial systems that have so badly failed us, and that are so urgently in need of adaptation to the needs of a changing and ever-growing population of the human species.

I know I'm not alone in believing that the current century will have to see the evolution of a whole new way of thinking about money, the use of resources, and the provision of life's essentials to vast new numbers of human dwellers on this planet. I personally lack the economic prescience to imagine what this new way will look like, but our post-industrial systems have clearly failed to provide the matrix for a safe and humane future for our species. We will need to to do much better than this if we are to survive.

Bias: Andrea Mitchell (et al)

I have a bone to pick this morning with Andrea Mitchell. I have been meaning to pick it with her for some time, but this morning her reporting on the impact of the financial crisis on the political campaign was so blatantly biased that I cannot let it pass without comment. I get that NBC promotes Mitchell as the exemplar of the impartial observer--and must assume, therefore, that the network shares her bias. So here's my beef: in reporting on the two presidential candidates and their statements in response to yesterday's events on Wall Street, Mitchell saw fit to introduce AND conclude her commentary with a snide reference to a long-scheduled Obama fundraiser to be hosted tonight in Hollywood by Barbra Streisand. The unavoidable and clearly not accidental inference of this way of bracketing her story is that Obama is not only an effete snob, but a hypocritical and money-grubbing effete snob, more interested in hobnobbing with the rich and famous than with the problems of the national economy.

I know that there's much ink spilled, from left and right, about the bias of the media. The right have made a great point of being the victims of supposed liberal bias. It's my own belief that the corporate-controlled media have the interests of their corporate controllers at heart. And while I don't wish to get personal about this, I wonder whether it's really appropriate to give so much public air time for commentary/reporting (the difference is blurred, these days) on matters of vital public financial interest to the wife of the man who promoted and enabled the policies that many believe were responsible for the current disaster.

It was a day that, in the opinion of many experts, was the worst for the American economy since the Great Depression, and we heard from the Republican contender for the Oval Office nothing more than a repetition that old Bush mantra that the "fundamentals" of the economy are strong. Worse, when his Democratic opponent presumed to disagree with this view, John McCain quickly claimed--in a mendacious pander to the blue collar vote--that by "fundamentals" what he really meant was the American worker, and that Obama, in disagreeing, was once again insulting hardworking patriots.

What a farce. Another mind-boggling "how can he possibly get away with it?" day. With long-established financial institutions crumbling and thousands losing their jobs, with the Dow average capsizing with a loss of more than 500 points, with the federal government having stepped in with taxpayer money to rescue giant corporations whose greed the Republican government itself enabled with decades of deregulation, the fundamentals are sound? Well, no. Not from my point of view. Like many others, I now live on a fixed income, and it's distressing to watch my nest-egg terribly depleted. But I'm fortunate. Others have lost jobs and homes, lack health care for themselves and their families, and can barely afford the essentials. Sorry. There's something "fundamental"-ly wrong with a system that places so many at extreme risk while it rewards others with fabulous--and fabulously unearned--wealth. There's something wrong with a system that extols the "free market" and then uses taxpayer money to bail out those who have abused this freedom with a mixture of incompetence and sheer greed.

And the rich continue to thrive. How else to explain, on the evening of this day of world-wide economic collapse, a Sotheby's sale in London where a single artist--Damien Hirst, an entrepreneur par excellence--walks off with a haul of $127 million (on just the first of a two-day sale; and was that dollars, or pounds?) in profit from the sale his incredibly high-priced baubles. Talk about bulls and sharks! Hirst's bull (with gold-plated hooves) sold for a reported $18 million; his shark in formaldehyde (the small version!) for $17 million. The mind reels. I'm still trying to understand what this has to say about the free market and the world economy, but I'm sure that it's not healthy.

And speaking of art, is it not quite strange and weirdly appropriate to read that Jeff Koons, that other immensely successful art entrepreneur, is exhibiting his (incredibly high-priced) baubles of gaudy kitsch at the Palace of Versailles, the over-the-top home of the monarch who presided over the demise of the last great Western socio-economic model to bite the dust? There's an irony here that's hard to miss. Unhappily, though, today's corporate "royalty" are walking away with both their heads and their piles of cash intact.

So you can see why I'd be mad at Andrea Mitchell today. She, it seems to me, is a part of both the financial establishment that gave us deregulation, unbridled greed, and the belief--passed down to the populace, but without the wealth to back it up--that growth and credit have no limits; and the media establishment that is supposed to provide that fourth estate check on power. How then can she pretend to be impartial, and cast a truly critical eye on those with whom she associates, and those who provide her bread and butter?

If I pick on Andrea Mitchell, let me hesitate to add, it is not out of any personal animosity. It is rather because she represents, in my view, not only a network but an industry--and industry that has a vested interest in preserving the conservative status quo. With reporters like these, Obama has a tough road ahead, to cut through the incessant, self-protective crap of the corporate-dominated media and their 24-hour news cycles, and to open the eyes of the American electorate to the simple truth of their exploitation and abuse.

NOTE

In last Friday's entry, 9/12, I referred to an exhibition of art by the homeless of downtown Los Angeles and a related documentary film. At the time, I neglected to mention the title of both, "Humble Beauty," or to offer a link to the fascinating website of the movie. My apologies to the artist and the film-makers for the oversight. Please visit "Humble Beauty," where you'll find more information on the film, the artists and their mentors.

Bush Cubed? Does It Matter?

It has become clear by now--has it not?--that John McCain has abjectly surrendered whatever independence he once had to the rabid right wing of his party. The more I read and the more I hear, the more I see this Sarah Palin as Bush cubed. She is possessed of the same messianic certainty, the same unapologetic bellicosity, the same conviction in herself and her own rightness, the same evangelical fervor. From all reports it seems, too, that her cronyism and petty vengefulness is equal to, if not greater than that of the current occupant of the White House.

It's my current belief that McCain was cowed into her selection by voices he had apparently no will nor power to resist; and that those voices, having foisted Bush upon us and now having astutely chosen Palin as their front, are firmly back in control of the Republican party. (The Frank Rich op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times is relevant to this line of thought.) The prospect that they might succeed in maintaining their stranglehold on those who vote their "gut" is frightening indeed. Ignorance is nourished by a steady diet of deception, secrecy, and outright lies; and the ignorant, thinking to wreak vengeance on their supposed tormentors, bring it instead upon themselves.

Ellie and I went to an Obama rally at a private home in the Hollywood yesterday afternoon. The admission cost was greater than any of our previous contributions but not outrageously beyond what we could afford, so we made the stretch. We hope others are doing the same. In any event, the featured guest was Governor Howard Dean, who spoke eloquently of the fix in which we find ourselves--and optimistically about Obama's chances for the fall.


Most notably, he spoke about the power of the new constituency of the young--for whom, he argued, and like whom Obama speaks. It's the constituency that Dean himself stirred to life in 2004, before his campaign sputtered in Iowa. These young people speak a different language from their elders, are skilled in a whole other means of communication with their laptops and cell phones; even the evangelical Christians in this age group, he said, reveal themselves in polls to be more concerned with issues like poverty, climate change and the ongoing genocide in Darfur than with race, reproductive rights and gay marriage; they are polyglot, unconcerned with the issues with which their parents struggled; and they are understandably concerned about a future which they can no longer entrust to their parents's generation. The failures and betrayals of trust are just too obvious to overlook.

Catching him in the throng a few minutes later, I asked Dean about the power of that famed Republican base. I summarized the point I made above: McCain seems now to have thrown in his lot with that far right-wing base. Is the new constituency of which Dean spoke strong enough to counterbalance, even overwhelm it? He assured me that he thought the time for that once powerful group was past, and that the coming election would prove his point. Given the ambient noise of a by-now rowdy party, I'm not sure that I accurately heard what he added next--but I think it was "If not this time, then next time around." I hope that I misheard!

The governor also disputed the numbers commonly thrown around about women voters turning to McCain following the Palin nomination. I didn't have the presence of mind to write them down, but the poll numbers he quoted showed the post-convention "surge" to have been predominantly male. Following Dean was a former deputy chief of staff from the Clinton White House (my apologies to this eloquent and well-informed speaker: I did not catch her name,) who added some useful insights and assured us that the majority of women--including those who had supported Hillary, as she had done in the primaries--would not be fooled by the Palin sideshow. And, finally, the film and television actress Felicity Huffman, one of the moving spirits behind the fund-raiser, spoke with genuine feeling about her concern as a mother for her two daughters in a political environment that threatens the security of their future.

Service, and More...

(Before I begin, as a courtesy to a friend, here's his birthday tribute to Les Paul--a musician and endlessly inventive tinkerer whose work I have always admired...)

Now, did anyone catch the Palin interview last night? I'd be interested to hear. I was out, but I doubt that I could have brought myself to watch it anyway. Was she questioned about the lies she has been repeating about herself with apparent impunity on the campaign trail? Thanks by the way, to Paul Krugman for a powerful column on this subject in today's New York Times. In case you missed it, here's his conclusion:

how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.

Well put, indeed. But I still like to hear impressions of that interview.

Much more important, of course, was the Forum on Service following the two candidates' visits to the World Trade Center site--an event that I recorded, to play back on my return home later in the evening. The two men were interviewed separately, but in depth, with serious questions that were for the most part seriously answered. Citizen McCain (he of the seven mansions) went first by toss of the coin, and spoke honorably, with evident sincerity, about the value of service to one's country and those who share both our neighborhoods and our planet. He seemed to me, however, to epitomize precisely what he has used to often to castigate his opponent: rhetorical eloquence with very little in the way of substantial proposals to back it up. Obama, on the other hand, spoke not only with his customary, inspirational eloquence of the big picture, the honor and the rewards of service, but also with the detail of practical--and practicable--programs to encourage Americans to serve. You know, substantial stuff.

Speaking of service, I mentioned earlier that I was out yesterday evening. Ellie and I went downtown with a friend to the opening of an exhibition of art by the homeless on Los Angeles's Skid Row, and the premiere of a related documentary movie. It's the dedication of another friend of ours, the artist Lillian Abel, that brought this about. For years, she has been championing the creative potential of those who have fallen on hard times--some as a result of psychological disorders, some by reason of financial catastrophe--and find themselves "on the streets." She does not "teach," she insists, but she does create space, both physical and mental, where a joyful creativity can blossom in the heart of human misery.

The results are truly remarkable. We're a rather snobby lot, truth be told, in the world of "contemporary art," and we tend to look down our noses at the work of those we consider to be more amateurish than ourselves. But look at these paintings by unschooled artists, and you'll find an outpouring not just of emotional depth but also of real, raw talent. I'd show you pictures, if only I hadn't forgotten (wouldn't you know?) to take the digital camera with me, and there was no brochure I could see to bring away as a reminder of the names of the artists and their work. They'll remain here, reprehensibly, nameless. But each one of them had something remarkable to offer, something of their own vision and humanity. Both the movie and the exhibit were extraordinary reminders of the human treasure that society casually brushes aside in its precipitous rush for wealth and progress. Thanks, Lillian, for this truly remarkable and selfless work. This service.

What a scene in downtown Los Angeles! It was the night of the monthly Thursday art walk, and the streets were literally teeming with mostly young people around the area that has seen new galleries and exhibition spaces popping up on the ground floors--and second floors--of buildings that are still under redevelopment. I have never seen such crowds, such liveliness, such obvious engagement and enthusiasm on streets that have traditionally emptied themselves of all but the destitute after dark. Here were artists, street musicians, performers, a bedlam of creative energy that was quite exhilerating to experience and gave hope that our species might yet devise ways to survive its current phase of insatiable greed and insanity. I just hope that it's powerful enough to resist the encroachment of those developers, with their condos and their luxury office suites, their boutique storefronts and trendy restaurants, their warehouses converted into high-rent lofts...

9/11

I plan to dedicate my morning meditation to those who died and their survivors; to the brave rescue workers; and to all those who suffered, and still suffer from the long-lasting effects of this dreadful day seven years ago...

It also seems like a good day to bring you my friend Mark, a student in Missouri, a double major in Religion and Philosophy, who has just restarted his blog Marko Polo after a summer break. Here's a young man who takes his religion seriously enough to keep asking the probing questions, and who stands up for what he believes in. In his entry yesterday he "confessed" to being VP of his university's Students for Barack Obama, and took the risk of exposing some of his fears and judgments. He wrote, eloquently:

I'm really plagued with anxiety about it all. Today I had about three students try to rip off the Obama sticker I sported proudly on my shirt all day. One of them said, "Obama is GAY!!!!" To which I responded somewhat snarkily, "Oh man! Don't tell his wife and kids!" Another straight up said to me, "I'm gonna impress my political views on you whether you like it or not!" Again, I replied curtly, "And that's why you're a Republican." Fifty bucks says none of the people who tried to rip the sticker off of my shirt have done any research into why they're going to vote for McCain or why they hate Obama.

The other day I saw a bumper sticker on the back of a car that said, "NObama," which I'm fine with (outside of really detesting most negative campaigning). Freedom of speech is a good thing. Upon further inspection, I wanted to punch the window out of the car that had the bumper sticker attached to it. Instead of the field of red and white with a sun rising over it that represents Obama's campaign, there was instead a blue Muslim star and crescent. How ignorant can you be?!?! Not only is that straight up wrong, but it's hateful to a perfectly beautiful religion.

It's a source of pleasure and not a little pride to have readers like Mark tuning in to The Buddha Diaries on a regular basis. Where he lives, it's not so easy to be a supporter of Barack Obama as it is here in (mostly) liberal California and (seriously) liberal Hollywood. Thanks for reminding me, Mark, that it sometimes takes courage to put out your political beliefs in a public way. I'm not a Christian, but when I meet Christians like you I take heart in the reminder that your religion, the one I myself was brought up with, is about the compassionate teachings of a wise and courageous leader--a true "maverick", who put his life on the line to challenge the tired old truths and usher in some new ones!

Education

Did I suggest, yesterday, that I was already ready to jump ship? Not quite so fast. I'm still holding on to the railing as I put my hope--my last hope, really--in the November election. I watched the Obama speech on education at a Virginia high school this morning, and it renewed my faith that this is indeed a man of intellect, understanding, and commitment.

But first, I have been hearing a lot about the passion issue in the past few days. Is Obama running out of steam? Does he seem listless? Is he less forthright, less powerful in intention? Has he said "Enough!" enough? The Tom Friedman opinion piece on the op-ed page of today's New York Times suggested that he is losing/has lost that gut connection with the American voters--and that, no matter her lack of qualifications or preparedness, the Republican nominee for the vice-presidential spot has managed to seize it. I like to believe--I'm hoping--that he knows how to pace himself. A continuous high level of passion is not only hard to maintain, it gets to be irritating, even counter-productive. Palin's high pitch (I'm speaking of intensity, not her voice: would I presume to use the word "shrill"?) is already proving tiresome. I'm confident that Obama will know the right time to switch it on again.

He did say "Enough!" in his speech on education. Twice, in fact. He was referring, in his preamble, to the amount of ink that has been spilled and airspace filled with the absurd brouhaha over his use of that common political speech cliche about "putting lipstick on a pig." It was seized on, of course, in the context of Palin's use of the word "lipstick" in her acceptance speech when, to her audience's delight, she compared herself favorably to a pit bull. When Obama uses it, of course, it's taken as a slur on her feminine virtue. There are bigger issues in this election, he pointed out with quiet clarity, than the trivialities that the Republicans grab on to and the media feed into their twenty-four hour a day hoppers of scandal and irrelevance.

Education, then. Have I mentioned my conspiracy theory in these pages before? I may have done. I've been nursing it ever since Hillary Clinton's "vast right-wing conspiracy" remark which provoked such mirth in the world of politics. I thought then, and still think she was not far off target: for the past fifty years, the right wing has been responsible for the slow throttling and eventual near-demise of America's once-great education system--not merely by starving it, increasingly, of adequate funding for its survival and treating those who practice it with little more than condescension, but by poisoning it at the very roots with a contempt for science and rational thought in general. By "dumbing down" the populace and robbing them of the last vestiges of critical thought by starving them of real education, they have assured themselves virtual control over the direction of the country. The now vacant minds of the public wait eagerly to be filled with whatever lies it takes to sell the product--whether hair spray, giant SUVs, or politician. Uneducated, these minds have no means to resist what is fed into them. They have no language skills to distinguish truth from lies, no mathematical skills to measure their own impoverishment at the hands of those who grow rich. They drink in the toxins of Rush Limbuagh and his ilk in the belief that such people are speaking in their interests. We have reached the travesty of civilization that George Orwell predicted, though in much more subtle and noxious ways than he predicted it.

With such power over minds, it is not hard to persuade a certain part of the voting public that Obama is nothing but hot air and that McCain and his cohort are blessed with infinite wisdom. Obama's speech this morning, for those who took the trouble to listen to it with an open mind, cannot fail to have inspired confidence in his commitment to the improvement of education and opportunity for America's young and his thoughtful, practical and practicable plans to achieve those goals. It's simple, really: if America is to compete with countries like India and China in a globalized economy, education and knowledge are the indispensible tools. If we are to meet such pressing challenges as those presented by climate change, we must educate minds to think in innovative ways.

I have yet to hear substantive plans from the McCain camp on this issue. The politics of resentment and victimhood is not enough. It appals me to be told, by McCain's top campaign advisor, that "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." That's not even good English, but it's clear what it means. In this campaign, lipstick trumps education any day of the week.

Turn It Off

This morning, friends, even I, a self-confessed news junkie, reached for the off button on the remote to tune out the morning news. The reason? The report that "white women in droves" are turning to the McCain camp as a result of the Palin vice-presidential selection. Oh, and Ellie, my neighbor in bed, reads from the Tuesday morning New York Times that the Obama camp is now having difficulty raising funds, while cash pours into the Republican coffers. And Obama, in an interview, continues to maintain that "Americans aren't stupid." I hope he's right.

Me, I'm not so sure any more. But then I couldn't believe it when Nixon was elected, and then re-elected. I thought we were headed for the toilet when a worshipful country went for Ronald Reagan. The 2000 relection and, God help us, the 2004 RE-election of George W. Bush put the cap on the insanity. And all the while, despite the rhetoric, the mantras, the repeated lies, the economy runs irreversibly downhill, the debts mount up on every side, the financial well-being of the American middle class is increasingly at risk, our reputation in the world is shattered while we stand by and tolerate the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and the imprisonment and torture of still more, and the very Constitution that defines us is shredded with impunity before our compliant eyes.

Are we willing, now, to throw away the opportunity to change our course? To elect a man who in so many ways represents a workable future for our country and the world we share? Are we so insecure, so shallow, so easily hoodwinked that we prefer instead a "maverick" who preaches the conservative gospel that has led us so very badly astray, these past three decades; and his fellow "maverick" who continues shamelessly to trot out her demonstrable but apparently self-serving lies before an adoring and uncritical public?

An old friend was saying just a few days ago that he believes, essentially, that this worldwide economic and social system we have constructed has us by the throat. He sees no hope for any significant change, no matter who gets elected, and puts his faith instead in the ability of human beings to regroup in small, workable, mutually supportive communities (he calls them "sacred lifeboats") to survive the inevitable collapse of what we call our civilization. I told him that I was not yet ready to go so far as to give up on the possibility to change course. It looks like this election could possibly support his view--in which case, I'll jump ship with him. But my friend is ready with the lifeboat he has been working with quiet prescience to construct. It may well be time for the rest of us to get to work...

Angry? Why Not?

Okay, I make a point of accepting a challenge when it comes along. A comment on my past entry has me wondering whether I'm in fact as "frustrated" as the writer says, and whether I'm too "caught up in the tumultuous world." Am I a part of what the current occupant of the White House described, in his absurdly short address to the Republican convention last week, as "the angry left"? You bet I am. It seems to me the only rational response to what he and his administration have wrought, these past (nearly!) eight years. I'm mad about pretty much everything to do with politics. I'm mad, particularly, that the American voting public seems willing to be led about by its me-first nose, allowing the spinmasters to twist every evidence of corruption, incompetence and failure to their advantage.

I'm mad, this morning, in the knowledge that blame the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac debacle and the attendant bailout will be cast on "government" and "Washington"--not for the truly reprehensible laissez-faire deregulation that for too many years catered to corporate and homeowner greed alike, but for bringing the bill to the door of the almighty "taxpayer." So who gets blamed? Not the free-marekteers, who have obscenely profited, but those who believe that government has a responsible role in exercising due vigilance over the economy.

I'm mad, this morning, about the "bounce" for the McCain campaign as a result of his selection of a person as unqualified to be president as anyone who has ever stood the proverbial heartbeat from that office. I'm mad that the "family values" gang are now ecstatic about the kind of unmarried teenage pregnancy that has previously aroused their ire and condemnation, despite their fanatical opposition to the kind of education that could help prevent it. I'm mad that this governor of Alaska has commanded so much media attention, as fodder for the consuming public's childish need for novelty and excitement, while the important issues that confront this nation go ignored.

And while I'm at it, I'm mad about the senseless war in Iraq and the deceptions that led up to it; I'm mad about the sheer incompetence of its conduct. I'm mad about the seven-year neglect of every other pressing issue in the Middle East including, especially, of course, the simmering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians that is at the heart of it all--along with the demand for oil. I'm mad about the disgracing of America in the eyes of the world, and about the public shredding of its constitution. I'm mad about the coddling of the rich and the neglect of the poor. I'm mad about the denial of scientific evidence and the shameful delay in addressing the issue of global climate change. I'm mad that vast numbers of citizens in this richest nation in the history of the planet lack adequate access to health care. I'm mad that cour children's education lags so far behind that of children in other developed countries, and that we are so busy attending to our own needs and defending our own rights that we lack the will to make the improvements that are needed.

So, yes. I'm angry. It seems to me the only sane and reasonable response to what is happening in this country. And yes, I confess to being "caught up in this tumultuous world." I was gifted by my parents with a social conscience that will not allow me to walk away from what I see to be madness, injustice, abuse of power and economic exploitation. As for being one of a "frustrated bunch of Buddhists"... well, call it frustration if you will. And yet I have said repeatedly that while I learn immeasurably from the teachings of the Buddha and the meditation practice they inspire, I am not (yet?) able to call myself "a Buddhist."

So far as I understand them, the teachings here would not have me deny the anger that I feel. They would ask me to conscientiously explore the source of that anger, and the ways in which it might be relieved. They would not have me ignore the suffering of the world around me, nor my own. Skillfully practiced, though, they would help me to establish the kind of equanimity that might in some measure alleviate the suffering of myself and others. They would urge the kind of goodwill and compassion that is much needed in the world--and in our country--at this time. We would all be getting on very much better if we could remove our own prejudice from the equation and listen with mindful attention to the views of others. I recognize that I myself am not very good at doing that, but at least I'm aware of the need to try.

That said, to reduce Buddhism to the catch-phrase "all is dust" is to seriously misunderstand the wisdom that it teaches. Perhaps, as I understand it, the alternative construction, "there is dust, and then..." might be a little closer to the mark.

Missed McCain...

... sorry. Actually, not sorry. Went to the Bowl instead. The Hollywood Bowl. Sat with friends. Drank champagne and a good Spanish burgundy. Noshed on hummus, stuffed grape leaves, Saint Andre and sharp Cheddar cheese. Listened to Prokofiev and Rachmaninoff. "Under the stars." Forgot about politics. All in all, a lovely evening. So, not sorry at all.

To judge from subsequent reports, however, it's clear by now that we have two very different John McCains to choose from: the one who prides himself on being his own man, who promises to "reform" his own party, who speaks quietly and the appearance of reason; and the other who kowtows to the extreme right wing of that party and stands by with tacit approval, as their anointed leader, while they yell out the same, tired old lies about the other party's policies and serve up the familiar Rovian political venom in the place of actual ideas. The pieces of the convention that I watched--along with everything I heard--added up to a depressing spectacle of poisonous mockery and mindless hoots and jeers, all in the name of "Country First." "U.S.A! U.S.A!"

Please. Isn't it time for us all to become adult enough to see ourselves in the context of a threatened planet, where millions starve and nationalist and resource wars already abound; where the very future of the planet is at stake--thanks, in part, to our own country's insatiable and self-indulgent consumption? And isn't it time for us to take a hard look in the mirror, instead of charging blindly on into a morass of debt and social chaos? Do we really know who we are? Do we actually know how to think, or are we to allow ourselves to be merely driven by advertisement and hype?

I'm probably way behind you all in stumbling into this wickedly intelligent satirical site, How Insane Is John McCain. I know, I know, it's probably not Right Speech. But it IS funny, and it skewers the Republican ticket with merciless precision.

Sarah Palin: The Art of Mockery

I felt obligated to watch a part of the Republican convention last night. After all, it's hardly fair to disagree with arguments you haven't even heard. Frankly, I heard little in the way of ideas and issues. The prevailing tone I picked up on was one of mockery of the ideas of others, and of their service, which contrasted to the Republicans' discredit, I thought, with the respect with which Obama seems to have insisted on in speaking of McCain, Palin and their supporters. I watched Joe Biden's commentary on the Palin speech this morning, and he spoke of her with nothing but respect and admiration for her skills. His criticism was restricted to the omissions from her speech--such things as health care and the economic plight of the American middle class--which the Obama camp considers to be the real issues facing the nation. He also drew attention to the more obvious rhetorical inaccuracies, specifically her unjustified... well, false assertions about the Democratic ticket's tax proposals. Fair enough to point to where the speech fell short. But mockery? The minimalization of Obama's career to a period of community work (bravo for him!) twenty years ago? This, to my mind, was empty rhetoric and spoke ill of those who indulged in it.

As for Sarah Palin, I received a copy, yesterday, of the letter I attach below. It presents a different view of her than that which she put out last night. Generally speaking, I don't like negative screeds, but it does seem important to take a good look at the presumptive Republican vice president, and this letter, despite its obvious passion, steers mostly clear of the personal attack ("redneck," perhaps, is an exception!) No question but that it's an opinion piece. But it's well-written, I'd say, and well-informed, coming from a faculty member at the American University in Washington DC. I checked out the writer, Joyce L. Francis, to be sure that I was not simply promulgating scuttlebutt. It's written as a caution to Dr. Francis's Stanford University classmates whose possible loyalties to Hillary Clinton and the progress of women in politics might lead them to be taken in by the McCain/Palin rhetoric. It's worth a read, and I offer it as such. No one has to agree with her argument, but it comes from what appears to be a genuine, intelligent and thoughtful source.

Dear Classmates,

As an Alaskan, I am writing to give all of you some information on Sarah Palin, Senator McCain's choice for VP. As an Alaska voter, I know more than most of you about her and, frankly, I am horrified that he picked her.

The most accurate description of her is redneck. Her husband works in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay and races snow mobiles. She is a life time member of the NRA and has worked tirelessly to allow indiscriminate hunting of wildlife in Alaska, particularly wolves and bears. She has spent millions of Alaska state dollars on aerial hunting of these predators from helicopters and airplanes, dollars that should have been spent, for example, on Alaska's failing school system. We have the lowest rate of high school graduation in the country. Not all of you may think aerial predator hunting is so bad, but how anyone (other than Alaska wolf-haters, of which there are many, most without teeth), could think this use of funds is appropriate is beyond me. If you want to know more about the aerial hunting travesty, let me know and I will send some links to informative web sites.

She has been a strong supporter of increased use of fossil fuels, yet the McCain campaign has the nerve to say she has "green" policies. The only thing green about Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has consistently supported drilling in ANWR, use of coal-burning power plants (as I write this, a new coal plant is being built in her home town of Wasilla), strip mining, and almost anything else that will unnecessarily exploit the diminishing resources of Alaska and destroy its environment.

Prior to her one year as governor of Alaska, she was mayor of Wasilla, a small red neck town outside Anchorage. The average maximum education level of parents of junior high school kids in Wasilla is 10th grade. Unfortunately, I have to go to Wasilla every week to get groceries and other supplies, so I have continual contact with the people who put Palin in office in the first place. I know what I'm talking about.

These people don't have a concept of the world around them or of the serious issues facing the US. Furthermore, they don't care. So long as they can go out and hunt their moose every fall, kill wolves and bears and drive their snow mobiles and ATVs through every corner of the wilderness, they're happy. I wish I were exaggerating.

Sarah Palin is currently involved in a political corruption scandal. She fired an individual in law enforcement here because she didn't like how he treated one of her relatives during a divorce. The man's performance and ability weren't considered; it was a totally personal firing and is currently under investigation. While the issue isn't close to the scandal of Ted Steven's corruption, it shows that Palin isn't "squeaky clean" and causes me to think there ay be more issues that could come to light. Clearly McCain doesn't care.

When you line Palin up with Biden, the comparison would be laughable if it weren't so serious. Sarah Palin knows nothing of economics (admittedly a weak area for McCain), or of international affairs, knows nothing of national government, Social Security, unemployment, health care systems - you name it. The idea of her meeting with heads of foreign governments around the world truly frightens me.

In an increasingly dangerous world, with the economy in shambles in the US, Sarah Palin is uniquely UNqualified to be vice president. John McCain is not a young man. Should something happen to him such that the vice president had to step in, it would destroy our country and possibly the world to have someone as inexperienced and inappropriate as Sarah Palin. The choice of Palin is a cheap shot by McCain to try to get Hillary supporters to vote for him. when McCain introduced her today, Palin had the nerve to compare herself with Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro. Sarah Palin, you are no Hillary Clinton.

To those of you who, like me, supported Hilary and were upset that she did not get the nomination, please don't think that Sarah Palin is a worthy substitute. If you supported Hillary, regardless of what you think the media and the democratic party may have done to undermine her campaign, the person to support now is Obama, not Sarah Palin. To those of you who are independent or undecided, don't let the choice of Palin sway you in favor of McCain. Choosing her shows how unqualified McCain is to be president. To those of you who are conservative, I guess you have no choice for president. But please try to see how the poor choice of Palin tells us a great deal about McCain's judgment.

While the political posturing inherent in the choice of Palin is obvious, the more serious issue is the fact that the VP is, literally, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Sarah Palin is totally and unequivocally unqualified to be vice president, let alone president.

I know this is a lengthy and emotional email, but the stakes are high. I thought it might help for all of you, regardless of political affiliation, to know something about Palin from someone who has to live with her administration in Alaska on a daily basis.

Joyce L. Francis, Ph.D.
International Development Program
School of International Service, American University

Okay, make what you will of this one. No matter the political stuff, I send metta for her happiness, and goodwill to those Republicans at their convention. And that's hard!

Stealing America

My friend Bill forwarded this link to the website of Stealing America, a movie about electronic voting and its susceptibility to error and outright fraud. After what happened in the last two presidential elections, NOW might be a good time to start insisting on adequate protections. It was the hanging chads and other egregious failures in Florida that brought us to the sorry state in which we find ourselves; and shenanigans in Ohio and elsewhere that led us deeper into the mire. I for one am grateful for the reminder that, this time, we must not allow ourselves to be caught napping.

On the political front, also, I checked out the New York Times this morning, and found virtually unanimous criticism of the Palin selection; this article may help explain why. The story of her petty tyrannies as mayor of Wasilla reveals an attitude toward executive power that is frankly pretty scary. I don't see how McCain can get away with this one. I'm sure she will rally the forces at the convention tonight, but am doubtful she can stand much further scrutiny in less adulatory circles. I could be wrong, of course--as I often am!--but I think McCain has served himself a large helping of Baked Alaskan trouble for dessert.

Having watched the effect of Gustav on the Republican convention, I now wonder what the imminent arrival of three other tropical storms on our shores might have on delegates who are not predisposed to dismiss the contribution of human activity to climate change. Will the timing of these successive events change any minds, shift any positions? Is the Earth's voice loud and persuasive enough to compete, in the minds of doubters, with what they believe to hear as the voice of God? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

For myself, a disbeliever in deities of all colors and stripes, the dual voices of science and reason are powerful enough. It dismays me to see the current Republican candidate pandering once again to the voices of unreason, who find a way to twist each manifestation of failure into a token of success; who bend their dearly-held principles to fit the contingencies of the moment; and who find justification for their inanities in the supposed approval of an infinitely malleable God.

I heard, today again, the argument that the parties are essentially "the same"--that whichever way you turn, you find mendacity and abuse of power, self-righteousness and intolerance of the opposition. I understand that this argument comes from years of disillusionment and disenchantment. But a look at the policies of each party--and the tone of their politics--suggests to me otherwise. They are not "the same," and the preponderance of fanatical ideology rests clearly on the other side. Bush spoke last night (via satellite, courteously disinvited from his Party's party!) of the "angry left." Does that imply a beatific state of tolerant equanimity on the right?

And finally, watch even a few minutes of the convention as cameras pan across the sea of faces and you can hardly help but notice the nearly universal homogeneity--and its stark contrast with what we saw last week in Denver. Should this not be of pressing concern to us, in a country that prides itself on its founding insistence that all [men] are created equal, and which preaches equality of opportunity for all?

No, these parties are not "the same." Prefer one or the other, as you will. Or neither of them. But I won't be persuaded that they are "the same."

Recklessness--Or Discipline: Our Choice

It's important to say this right. I understand that John McCain and his supporters take great pride in the maverick qualities by which he seeks to define himself, and to be defined. And there's something extraordinarily attractive about the maverick--the guy who bucks the system, holds feet to the fire, speaks truth to power, all those old cliches. It's a part of the American myth, the archetype that catapulted Ronald Reagan to power--and assures him seemingly everlasting sainthood in the memory of vast numbers of Americans, despite the evidence that suggests, to rational minds, that his true legacy is far from the unmitigated triumph it is made out to be. It also played an important part in the George W. Bush ascent to power--and its catastrophic outcome.

Now comes shoot-from-the-hip McCain, proclaiming his gunslinger credentials, and it's important for us to understand that the dark side of the maverick's willing--perhaps even romantic--embrace of risk is recklessness. The dark side of the fighter pilot's courage is the flyboy's arrogant impulsiveness and fatal attraction for danger. Am I "unpatriotic" in wondering if we yet need to hear the full story of the events that led to the downing of that aircraft in Vietnam, before McCain's much-touted stay at the Hanoi Hilton? Is it irreverent to ask for an accounting of those events, now that this same fighter pilot seeks to be entrusted with the controls in this country's cockpit and make life-or-death decisions for us all, for the next four, perhaps eight years?

These thoughts arise from my observation of McCain and his vaunted willingness to take a risk and, when all else fails, to throw the hail-Mary pass. (Apologies for the mix of metaphors, friends!) Clearly, the latest example of this quality is the choice of Sarah Palin for McCain's vice-presidential running-mate. And this is not, please, about Sarah Palin. I have no reason to disrespect her, although I suspect I would disagree with her on virtually every issue, from birth control and abortion and a woman's right to control her destiny to her disbelief in the human contribution to climate change. It is particularly not about a seventeen-year-old being pregnant and unmarried. No, this is about a man who spends months building political capital on his urgent promotion of the war in Iraq and on his opponent's supposed unpreparedness to handle the dangers that face us in that part of the world; and who then turns around and picks, as his immediate successor in the event of his incapacity, a person who is clearly, indeed dangerously under-qualified in this very area. And this for no other apparent reason than to appease those social and religious conservatives who have mistrusted him, and to poach democratic votes from the angry, disappointed Hillary support group. Oh, and to have a fellow "maverick" on the ticket.

I don't know about you, but I don't want another risk-taker in that office. I admire the quality in less high-stakes situations, but this is not a game of football. We're talking, now, about the task of steering this country back to calmer seas (ouch, those metaphors!) and re-establishing our position in the world, as Teddy Kennedy eloquently put it, by "the power of our example, not the example of our power."

In contrast to the jumpy maverick qualities of John McCain, I see the quiet, forceful approach of Barack Obama. There are those who like to characterize Obama as aloof, unapproachable--not the kind of guy, they say, you'd want to sit down and have a beer with, unlike the current occupant of the White House. They are fooled, I say, into overlooking the one quality we desperately need in our next president: a true, unflappable mental discipline, a clarity and determination that see past the contingencies of the moment and hold fast to the big picture, the need for sanity, mutual respect and justice in the world, if we are to survive the baser aspects of our human nature.

Drawing, as I often do, on my admiration for the teachings of the Buddha, I honor not only Obama's quite extraordinary equanimity, but also the natural ease and clarity with which he embraces "Right Speech"--his steadfast refusal to advance his interests by slandering others, even those who gladly slander him. Who could fail to admire his immediate, forthright and unambiguous response to the current flap over what is, after all, no more than a family matter? I honor the dignity with which he had consistently refused to succumb to those who demand that he descend into the political mire, or risk appearing weak. His acceptance speech, last week, was ample evidence of strength combined with dignity.

Dignity, it's true, is not the most fuzzily "approachable" of qualities. It risks making its wearer seem a bit remote. But we have had ample time to contemplate the results of electing a folksy, scrappy pugilist and undisciplined thinker to hold our highest office and represent us to the world. Isn't it time for the corrective of some quiet balance, some serious forethought in judgment, some intellectual rigor and, yes, some dignity? Do we really need another reckless jolt into a future filled with known and unknown dangers? For myself, in the matter of global politics, I favor predictability over excitement, the dignity of dialogue over the bloody legacy of the sword.

Gustav

I recall one of those right-wing reverends, in the days after Katrina, attributing the catastrophic effects of storm to the expression of his God's wrath about gays and permissive sexuality. Tempting though it might be, I'll refrain from returning the favor by belaboring the effects of Gustav on the Republican convention. I'm just grateful that, for the time being at least, the evacuation orders appear to have minimized the storm's potential to cause human pain and suffering--though the mere fact of having to leave one's home and join the grid-locked procession out of the storm's path must have been disruptive enough in itself.

I can't help but notice, however, that Gustav has given the Republicans the best excuse in the world to spare themselves the otherwise obligatory appearance of Bush and Cheney at their event; and has offered those dignitaries the opportunity to redeem a small measure of their inexcusable negligence on the occasion of the earlier event. They can now look busy and concerned before the media's camera; they can mouth the words of compassion that were distressingly absent before; they can go through the motions of being in charge. Would that it had been so when Katrina hit. Would that New Orleans and its environs had received the federal aid they needed to recover from the damage they received three years ago. Would that the Bush administration's promises had been kept. From everything I hear, it is not so. The one inarguable lesson is that government is not always the problem, as ideological Republican leaders have so earnestly preached over the past three decades; and that the damage done to government by their efforts must now, like those levees, be repaired.

After last week's spectacular success for the Democrats at the convention, their opponents are now going to have to settle for at least the first couple of days of their convention with the media's attention focused steadfastly elsewhere. My part-Buddhist self tells me to take a breath and send thoughts of compassionate goodwill in their direction, while my political self wrestles with a reprehensible sense of Schadenfreude. Inevitably, on both sides, political calculation will have a significant role in how this story plays out over the next few days and as of this morning, the storm's damage is considerably less than the expectations hyped by the media.

I have been sitting on some ideas about Obama and what I judge to be the double standard of the media in covering his campaign; and about McCain and his vice-presidential choice. Once in a while I get a moment of clarity, but I have to say that the distractions of the moment--from Ellie's continuing battle with her rib pain to the chaos that surrounds us in our Laguna Beach cottage--have made it difficult to put together any coherent lines of thought. Today, we return to the relative tranquility of our Los Angeles home. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get my head together.