LITERACY NARRATIVE

Before one writes, one reads.  A lot.  How did you begin to read?  What did you read?  What did it mean to you?  My college writing-workshop instructor, author Craig Lancaster, asks us to write it down.  Here's mine.

"Come, Martha Jean.  Edith Ann?  Carol Louise, Bud, Sis?  It's time to read before bed," calls Mom.  From different points in the house, we gather in the living room and quietly find a place to sit.  Dad is already seated in his sedate but comfortable chair by the reading lamp.  The Bible is in his lap.  When we're ready, he opens it to a place sometimes marked, sometimes not.  His voice begins quietly, steadily, reverent in every aspect.  When he stops and closes the book, we know it's time to kneel at our place for prayers.

From before my birth, this is the tradition followed by my father's father, and his family of eight:  devotions and prayers before bed.  Nothing interferes, not even an errant mouse.  "William, go get the broom."  Reading is on hold until William captures and eliminates the rodent --after which reading takes up again. 

The Bible is the mainstay, the foundation of our family's reading, my reading.  This is where it begins.  Every day of every year from birth until I leave for college and then marriage, reading the Bible aloud is a basic tradition.  Are there benefits to Bible reading this often, this long?  That never occurs to me until I start writing this narrative (it hits like a thunderbolt!).  This is the framework, the picture so-to-speak, of our family Bible-reading sessions. 

• The setting -- The family is gathered together in the living room in the evening.  It is dark outside but we have light inside.  We are safe.  Each of us sits where we choose, on chairs, on sofa, on piano bench.  The center of attention is a book and everyone listens to the reading of that book.  When prayers are finished, all leave the room and go to bed for the night with language from the book still ringing in our ears.

•  The main character -- The main character in the scene is Dad with the book.  He sets the tone for the Bible-reading just through his own actions.  His voice is still, steadfast, deferential.  And so are we.  It is abundantly clear that Dad is the leader of this family.  He is not always as loving and kind as this scene would imply.  There are multiple facets to his personality.  But in relation to his reading of the Bible, his attitude and actions are impeccable. 

• The supportive characters -- We, including my mother, follow Dad's lead.  More than we know, we are soaking up all the language that the King James version of the Bible provides.  The cadence and rhythm of the narrative; the exceptional vocabulary like "thee", "thou", and "thy" not often used any more except by specific sects similar to Quakers; the flow of the words, phrases, sentences.  These are what stick.

This framework explains that the impact of the Bible-reading sessions has to do with more than just the reading.  It also creates feelings of (1) safety, warmth, and comfort; (2) security that our parents do/will take care of us; and (3) appreciation for the beauty of the language we hear.

No other book has influenced me more, as I am now realizing.  My choices of reading material later on do not include what are considered the classics.  "Mr. Fix-it", "Black Beauty", books by author Grace Livingston Hill are a means by which I can lose myself in the story.  Even biographies and historical fiction serve the purpose of taking me out of my own reality of a too-restrictive life to a place where I can dream. 

The absence of pictures is another benefit of the Bible as a reading foundation.  As I listen, I create pictures in my mind.  To this day, I prefer listening to National Public Radio just as much or moreso than seeing TV or a movie.  Creating my own mind-pictures is one of the most enjoyable aspects of listening to a narrative.

The last benefit of the Bible-reading sessions, but not the least, is a deep appreciation for the book as object.  One of my first acts in exploring a new book is to smell the pages as I flip through them.  Not only seeing the exterior of front and back covers but also feeling them (are they smooth or nubby?) is important.  Icing on the cake comes, however, when I discover the pages are thin as tissue.  Parchment, maybe?  To me, that's the ultimate -- just as Dad's Bible had.

This revelation of the importance and influence of Bible-reading sessions on my literacy inheritance almost blows me away.  As a college student, I reject my early upbringing and choose a much more liberal path, becoming more broad-minded with each passing decade.  What continues to linger, I realize, is not so much the message and content of the readings but the method by which they are delivered.  Language is the thing.  Therein lies its inherent value.  One could do worse than have the Bible as a literary role model.

THE LOWDOWN ON HILLARY CLINTON

"...Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society's trust."  This description is what both right and left agree on when it comes to Hillary Clinton, according to Michael Arnovitz of Portland, Oregon.  His Facebook post clearly lays out the process by which this viewpoint has been developed over the years.  Authenticity of his facts and summations ring so many bells for me that I wish to pass them on to you.

First, "...the claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given."  Two sources who should know refute this claim of dishonesty:  (1) Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most politicians (but not all) they have tracked over the years, and (2) Jill Abramson, former Executive Editor of New York Times states, "I'm not a favorite in Hillaryland...Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy."

Where, then, does the "birth of 'Hillary as a Liar' meme start?"  Arnovitz takes us back to Whitewater and William Safire's essay about Hillary Clinton called, "Blizzard of Lies."  A few examples created by Safire and listed by Arnovitz include Safire calling her a "'congenital' liar...[she] created 'web of deceit' with friends...she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, 'bamboozled' bank regulators," and so on.  In the end, "...Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written".  So what was the real reason Hillary was pilloried at the time?  "She had refused to play the traditional First Lady role...and...she attempted to champion Universal Health coverage."  [What many women of today are very sure of is that "uppity women" get no respect.  Currently, Hillary Clinton, in my view, is the mother of all uppity women -- she has the audacity to think that she as a woman could become President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world!  How dare she?!  But I digress.]

Arnovitz goes on.  Although"conservative propaganda and lies" are to blame, he feels the "main fuel that powers the anti-Hillary crowd is sexism...I've seen no other plausible explanation---this is the primary force that has generated and maintained most of the negative narratives about Hillary."

However, Arnovitz sees several serious impediments when making accusations of sexism:
(1)  Almost no one will admit to it, either conservative or liberal...
(2) Overt sexism is significantly more likely to be tolerated in our society than overt racism...
(3) We have formed a sort of collective blindness to sexism that allows us to pretend that we are on top of the issue while simultaneously ignoring the many ways in which it actually permeates our society...
(4)  Unlike men, women who make demands are still often seen as unfeminine and inappropriately aggressive, bordering on deviant...

To overcome these impediments, Arnovitz brings out the heavy-hitters:  numbers, proof of the pudding as it were.  Arnovitz describes a chart of Hillary's popularity over time.  It has been put together by Nate Silver beginning with her time as First Lady in the White House in the early 90's.

• At that time, Hillary's polling starts out great
• When Hillary takes charge of Universal Health Care, her negatives skyrocket.
• During Whitewater investigations, her polling improves dramatically.
• When Hillary declares she will run for Senate in New York, her favorables plummet while her unfavorables rise sharply.
• Once she's elected, her numbers stabilize and even improve.
• About the same time Hillary withdraws from the 2008 Presidential race, her favorables take off again.
• Her polling stays way up (some think to a remarkable level) until...guess?
• She decides to run for President again.  Where are her unfavorables now?

The common thread running through all this, as Arnovitz makes clear, is that whenever Hillary asks for power, her numbers drop like a manhole cover [my emphasis].  "The one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power."  [There's that uppity woman again.]

Arnovitz also analyzes issues people are currently using to disparage Hillary.

1.  Honesty -- That's been addressed above.  Additionally, it can be asked if she's any worse than other politicians.  No worse than many; better than most.  Trump has been known to be significantly less honest on the campaign trail.  According to Politifact, Trump is the least honest candidate they have ever analyzed.  Is Hillary being held to a higher standard than Trump?  

2.  Scandals -- "Are scandals still scandals if no one has done anything wrong?" asks Arnovitz.  In fact, Hillary has always been cleared of any wrongdoing, he points out.  There is such a thing as "negative effect on credibility," he goes on.  "It's not so much the RESULT of scandals as it is the INTENT of those who create them."  Examples:  (a) Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hours investigating Clinton's use of White House Christmas Card List, and (b) Consider treatment Hillary gets due to her private email "scandal" compared to that of General David Petraeus and asks, "Why is Hillary Clinton being held to an obviously different standard than Petraeus?"  Republicans fawn all over him after his illegal behavior but defame her when she has no illegal behavior.

3.  Money -- Hillary has been denigrated for accepting $250,000 speaking fees.  The truth?  "There is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees."  For appearances, Paris Hilton has been paid $750,000; Kylie Jenner, $100,000; and Vanilla Ice, $15,000.  For speaking engagements, the MINIMUM paid by "All American Speakers" who represents Hillary and 135 other people is $200,000.  If the fee drops to $50,000, over 1200 are represented.  Many more are represented by other agencies.  It is not unusual, then, for people to earn high speaker fees.  What is unusual, Arnovitz points out, is for A WOMAN to earn this amount.  Ever hear of Rudy Guiliani and speaking fees he earned in 2007?  Like $700,000 a month; $40 million in the 5 years before his presidential run?  Or Jeb Bush earning millions from paid speeches after leaving Governors office?  Any complaints?

4.  Wall Street -- The implication is that Hillary's highest paid speeches are provided to Wall Street.  In fact, out of 100 speeches she's given since leaving the State Department, only 8 were done for Wall Street at $225,000 each.  That doesn't break her highest paid speeches rate of $275,000 of which 3 were provided to Canada.  Most of her speeches have been to organizations like Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, and even to American Camping Association...  "Does Wall Street have influence over politicians?" Arnovitz asks.  "Of course. It has enormous influence on everyone.  But," he continues, "influence is not the issue.  Whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption is the issue...There is an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander."

There's been a media frenzy over Hillary and her paid speeches.  How does Donald compare?  He has been paid $1.5 million on numerous occasions; has been a proud scam artist with "Trump University" as a prime example; regularly calls Hillary Clinton, "Crooked Hillary and gets away with it.

[These last paragraphs are copied word-for-word from Arnovitz's post.  They speak directly to the issue at hand.  No one could have said it any better.]

"What the actual f... is going on here?  What's going on is what we all know, but mostly don't want to admit:  presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being 'manly' -- physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume.  Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases.  There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard.  And her battle with societal sexism isn't going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama's battle with racism stopped once he was elected.  These are generational issues, and we are who we are.

And, actually, this only makes her victory all the more amazing.  And maybe it's OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments.  In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State.  Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress.  By any objective measure Hillary is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she's one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office.  The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, 'voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.'  [Arnovitz adds more quotes.]

Hillary is nobody's idea of perfect.  Fine.  But in my view if a man with her qualifications were running in the Democratic primary, Bernie would have been done before he even started.  And if a man with her qualifications had been running for the Republicans, they'd be anointing him the next Reagan while trying to sneak his face onto Mount Rushmore.

Most of the people who hate Hillary when she's running for office end up liking her just fine once she's won.  And I have every confidence that history will repeat itself again this November.  As for myself, I have been watching Presidential elections since Nixon.  And never in my life has there been an easier or more obvious choice than now.  Trump is not merely a bad choice, he is (as manly leading Republicans have already admitted) a catastrophic choice, unfit in every possible way for the office of the Presidency.  As such, I happily voted for Hillary in my primary.  And I will proudly vote for her in November.  Yes she will disappoint us all on occasion.  Who doesn't?  But I think she's also going to surprise a lot of people  She will fear neither consensus when possible nor ass-kicking when necessary.  She will safeguard us from the damage a right-wing Supreme Court would inflict on the nation.  She will stand for the rights of women, LGBT Americans, and minorities.  She will maintain critical global relationships, and she will react to dangerous situations with the temperament of a seasoned and experienced professional.  And in a nation that didn't even allow women to vote until 1920, she will make history by shattering the very highest glass ceiling, and in doing so forever change the way a generation of young women view their place in our Republic.

She's going to be a fine President.

I'm with her."

As of June 12, 2016, the original Michael Arnovitz Facebook post had 6,143 shares.  The original Facebook post is here:  www.facebook.com/...










 

LIKE A MANHOLE COVER

It's 1976.  I sit in a classroom with other students on the campus of Indiana University, Ft. Wayne.  It's evening.  I've driven to this class from Warsaw (45 min.) after a full day of teaching in elementary school.  I'm tired.  But I'm here because it's a state requirement:  I must begin work toward my Master's Degree within a five-year time span after starting to teach.  (It must be completed within ten years to retain my teaching certificate.)

Since I must take graduate courses anyway, why not work towards school administrative certification in the process of earning my Master's Degree?  School administrative courses could fulfill the requirement of "electives" for one thing.  But there's another reason I want that kind of certification.

For several years now, I've been frustrated.  I've enjoyed teaching both third and fourth grades in this small school system in northern Indiana.  Team-teaching with my colleagues has been a stimulating and real learning experience in so many ways.  Adapting to others' instructional methods while also sharing my own; observing our school principal's missteps which create tension among staff as a whole; then being elected President of our Teachers Association and head of our collective bargaining team -- this path, these leadership positions lead me to believe I can make a more effective school principal than our current one.  Icing on the cake comes when our School Superintendent officially names me "Interim Principal" for a day while our regular principal is out of town.  Superintendent Roehrer's confidence in my administrative skills blows me away.  I really can do this thing:  become a school principal.

So here I sit in a class of 20 students, a few women but mostly male ex-jocks [I make that assumption based on the fact that the path to a principalship at this time is through coaching].  I pull out my research paper that had been assigned for this class.  I do a quick review:  it is an argument, based on research, that states that women in school administration have performed outstandingly.

"Edith Sloan," the instructor calls.  I walk to the front of the room.  Clearly and distinctly, I read the two-page paper.  The most impressive part of it is a particular research study that shows the importance and success of women who serve as school principals.

As I finish, the instructor inquires if there are any questions.  A hand is raised near the front of the room.  "Yes?" I ask.

"I was just reading about a study the other day.  It showed just the opposite of what you've stated.  Women don't make good school administrators.  They're not nearly as successful as men.  What do you have to say about that?"

I repeat results from my study and, as my time is up, return to my seat.  The questioner is seated at the desk beside me.

"Where did you find the study you talked about?" I whisper.

"It doesn't exist," he responds.

"What?!"

He repeats himself, "It doesn't exist."

As the implication of what he has said sinks in, my heart drops into my stomach, my eyes grow wide with shock, and I growl, "How could you lie like that?"

"It served its purpose, didn't it?"  In other words, his "study" casts doubt on the legitimacy of my argument.  His response is just loud enough for me to hear.  He does not look at me.

Nothing less than a manhole cover could have taken the air out of my lungs like the act of this one person.  Every day of the week, every time I hear someone talk about Hillary Clinton as if she were a common thief and much worse, every occasion that Donald Trump (or his surrogates and/or other Republicans) opens his mouth with another obscenity or lie about Hillary, my teeth grind.  I'm reminded of that one evening in that classroom in Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

It isn't as if I have had even the half of what Hillary has had to endure.  No one should ever have to be exposed to that kind of abuse let alone daily and even hourly.  But I know what it looks like; I know how it feels.  It's called sexism (every bit as real as racism):  "prejudice or discrimination based on sex, especially discrimination against women."

Thanks to Michael Arnovitz of Portland, OR, for the idea of this blog title. 
 

COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN?

Hillary Clinton gets a healthy "bump" from the Democratic Convention and begins her path back to dominance over Donald in the fall presidential election race.  It seems that with her wide, respected selection of surrogates telling her story, Hillary becomes the much more likely candidate to win.  Polls show the general population more in agreement with her values and will likely vote for her.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, keeps tripping over himself but nevertheless continues his habit of creating shock, dismay, and disbelief.  On each such occasion, very little time allows people to absorb the shock and to react in any other way than "Ain't it awful!"

In the meantime, investigative reporters and national security agencies are continuing their search for evidence concerning hostile governments' actions (like Russia) that interfere with the U.S. political process.  Much of that investigative work is focused on Donald and his sidekick, Paul Manifort, and their business dealings with Russia.  Will reporters and agencies be able to locate and communicate their findings to the American public before the election in November?

"October Surprise" brings about a major breach in our country's security (could it be something planned by Donald, Manifort, with Putin?).  All along, political pundits have been voicing the fear that Donald could overcome the polls' autumn majority for Hillary if a Putin-inspired disaster were to happen too close to the election.  Our population would be so afraid, they say, that it would change their vote from Hillary to Donald, giving Donald the presidency.

What are some facts that would seem to support this scenario?

1.  Over and over again, Donald has voiced admiration for Vladamir Putin. 
2.  Paul Manifort has had past (and current) business dealings with Russia through Ukraine.  (Has one reporter who has been investigating Manifort's business dealings in Ukraine also been hacked?)
3.  Donald's refusal to show his tax returns.  They may show any business dealings he has had with Russia.
4.  Donald has invited Russia to hack into Hillary's emails.  Considered espionage?
5.  Donald had the opportunity to turn down any items on the Republican Party Platform at the Republican Convention.  Although there were several with which he disagreed, he chose only one -- that of dealings with Ukraine.  Donald demanded removal of "references arming Ukraine in its fight against pro-Russia rebels, who have received material support from the Kremlin".  [The Guardian, 7/30/16]
6.  Vladamir Putin has made it a habit to interfere with western democracies through cyberattacks on French, Greek, Italian, Latvian targets during elections [The Guardian, 7/30/16].  Hacking the Democratic National Committee would follow in that tradition, something alleged to have been done by Russia.

All this is the kind of stuff of which movies have been made.  That may be the end result this November -- that nothing disastrous comes from it, that it all ends only in a movie script.  I can only hope.  In the meantime, however, my resolve is to make sure I vote, that others are encouraged to vote as well, and that our votes are for the only logical choice:  Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 
 

 

Running Blue in a Red State: KICKING ASS!"I'm too old for this.""Are you su...

Running Blue in a Red State: KICKING ASS!

"I'm too old for this."

"Are you su...: KICKING ASS! " I'm too old for this." "Are you sure?" Right brain argues with my left brain. Daughter buys m...

KICKING ASS!

"I'm too old for this."

"Are you sure?"

Right brain argues with my left brain.

Daughter buys my house in a small Montana town.  I move into the city 50 miles away and live totally alone for the first time ever.  I'm short six months of celebrating my 75th birthday.

This is, in fact, an experiment, an adventure of sorts.  I sign a six-month lease on a small apartment.  Although I'm acquainted with a few people and can find my way around, the territory is essentially new.  Am I really too old for this?  Can I begin a new life in a city alone?  Why would I even want to?

As a four-year resident of a small town, I find limited opportunities to stretch myself.  Running for political office as a Democrat bucks the local trend.  It leaves me feeling unrewarded and on the outs with many colleagues.  Serving on a local Board as well as trying to re-capture use of a skill from my distant past means that I expend all my energies, burn out, and look for other ways to succeed.  How can I widen my horizons, increase my knowledge, grow?

First step:  Create a vision.  How do I see myself in the latter third of my life?  As a grandparent?  Not yet anyway.  A perpetual volunteer?  Maybe.  A person who has skills, talents, and dreams yet to be realized?  Yes, that's who I am.  What are my dreams?  Live life to its fullest.  Possibly reside in another country that has a different culture, traditions, food, and language.  (Research cannot say for sure but learning a new skill like another language may help build brainpower that helps hold off memory loss - WebMD.)  How can I bring that to pass?

Second step:  Embrace change.  Change happens anyway.  Why not meet it head-on?  I want adventure; I want to experience as much life as possible.  To do that, I must live independently.  Floating lazily down a stream while other family members make decisions about my life doesn't really cut it.  I research possibilities, choose options.  Sell my house, move into the city.

Third step:  Observe self through upcoming changes.  How do I plan my days in the city?  In which organizations do I have interest and want to participate?  How do I connect with others who may have similar interests?  Do I feel my goal of living life to its fullest is coming to fruition?  Will it be enough?  Or do I want to push myself even more?  If I do well in this transition of six months, does that mean I have found my goal or is there a next step?

Possible fourth step:  Assess my life within six months.  Is this a city where I continue to expand horizons, increase my knowledge, grow within a community?  Or does living overseas sound like a more interesting option?  If that's true, developing how-to skills is a part of that process and is already starting.

Life happens, right?  To the extent, however, that one can control anything at all, I want to make challenging choices.  I live to the best of my ability in this third "third".  It is as I wish -- a kick-ass life!

Published in Montana Senior News, June/July, 2016, is the following story I wrote in February, 2015.

TODAY I FLY!

Today's the day.  I jump into my car.  I'm free!

Down alley, left to Main.  No cars.  I turn right, then right again at the blinking light, down the hill.  Slowly, I keep at 25 mph.  I want to fly!  No.  Not yet, not yet.

The sun, still low in the sky, hits me on the left.  Feels good.

I cross the river and enter the first curve.  Years back, the road twists and turns.  It would be so easy to miss a bend, fly across a fence, a pasture.  Now my path cuts through hillsides.

Without thinking, I push the radio "on" button.  A blast of static assails.  Oops.  I haven't yet crossed the Divide where Montana Public Radio kicks in.

The road gently inclines.  I consider my long, productive life, achievements undisputed.  A strict, stifled upbringing leads to a failed marriage but, out of that, comes a daughter with whom I now share my home.  The death of my second husband four years ago precipitates my move to Montana.  Adjustments haven't been easy.  Now at 74, I've questioned my worth many times.  But today?  Today I fly!

Slowly I reach the peak.  At the Divide, a railroad trestle spans the highest point in the mountains.  Over the edge, cliffs are steep, jagged.  Valleys below are rolling, uneven.  What if I gunned the motor, heading straight instead of curving with the road?  Just let myself go, relax into the air, gravity carrying me downward?  No, no.  Not here. Not yet.

Again I push the radio button.  It's MTPR's "Performance Today".  Strauss from Carnegie Hall flows around, through me, providing calm to taut nerves.  What will be my performance today?

Memories flood in.  A school teacher, a doctoral degree, a school principal.  How else to move up in the 1970's than to have more credentials than male counterparts?

A new love, a move to Florida, a consulting venture.  I love the work but not clawing to the top.  A better fit is serving as a Peace Corps Volunteer with my husband in Bulgaria for two years after retirement.  Adjusting to newness of country, language, food, traditions, is a challenge we meet with flying colors.

I'm good at adjusting to change, overcoming barriers.  I've done it many times.  There's been so much to live for.

After relocation and my husband's death, I adapt.  The long-distance move to my daughter's is part of that flexibility.  But now, approaching old age, I must again create something new.

It's been difficult.  One step forward, two steps back.  Where am I now?

I have read statistics on suicides in the West, far higher than in the rest of the nation.  Montana is ranked third nationally.  Will I be considered one of those statistics?  No matter.  I know what I have to do.

Through prairie land, intermittent hills along stretches of ribbon highway, I spy clouds of rising smoke signaling my arrival into the city.  I make a right turn at the blinking light and another further on.  I begin my ascent up the long, steep rise.  Approaching the summit, I see on my left a sign for Swords Park, a walking path follows the top of the stone rims forming the city's northern boundary.  Located many feet below is the city center shaped by the rims into a bowl.

I often wonder what it would be like to walk this path.  Can I take that walk now?  No guard rails, no fences, nothing to impede a stumble and fall into the abyss.  No surrounding mantle of metal to keep a body from feeling the full impact of bones against rock.

A slight movement to the right of my windshield draws my attention -- an orange color, waving in the wind.  Oh, yes.  I pull right into the drive, pass several buildings before arriving at the door of the last one.  I climb from my car just as a tall, lanky fellow steps out, sees me and grins.

"Hey," he calls.  "Right on time.  Are you nervous?" he asks, heading my way.

"Are you kidding?!  I'm scared silly!  My whole life has passed before my eyes.  But, hey, this is my first tandem skydive.  Today I fly!"  

A MOMENTOUS CHANGE

A microcosm, my personal life mirrors the larger political changes in our country.  What is going on?  Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first woman ever to be elected as Presidential Candidate of a major political party.  It becomes more than probable that she will be our next President of the United States.  How does that affect me?

1.  About Hillary's candidacy, people say, "Enough of male-only leadership.  Forget what has always been.  Let's look seriously at width and depth of experience, a female outlook, wisdom-with-age and see where that can take us."
     My personal life:  I sell my house to my daughter (she's been staying with me off and on over the past four years).  Closing on my house is July 7.  My past tells me I must follow tradition, do what has already worked.  Buy another home, grow more roots, stay close to home and family.  This time, however, my path is not so clear.  What do I want to do with the rest of my life?  Do I really want another home which requires time and resources to maintain and which also keeps me staying in one place?  Why not invest that time and money in my life?  Take the focus off a house, put it on me, see where it can take me?

2.  About Hillary's candidacy, people say, "We need no longer be tethered to a tired, old idea.  We have the ability now to experiment and succeed with a female leader as many other countries have already done.  Consider Indira Gandhi of India; Golda Meir of Israel; Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom; Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan; Angela Merkel of Germany; and Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar.  These are only six out of a list of more than 25 female leaders of countries.  (Wikipedia)
     My personal life:  I would like not to be tethered to a house.  Instead, I would like to fly, to experiment, to meet people who may be more like me -- whatever that looks like.  Or to meet people who look nothing like me, speak another language, practice different traditions, eat different foods.

3.  About Hillary's candidacy, people say, "These years can be a learning experiment.  See what women like Hillary can do -- success will be hers.  Imagine the role model she will serve for young girls and women."
     My personal life:  I want the last years of my life to be a learning experiment.  What am I capable of doing?  What risks am I willing to take?  Can I make my life exciting again by learning something new while still taking care of myself?  Can I be a success in my own eyes?

My developing plan:

• Rent a small apartment in our nearby city for six months.  See what I can do.  It allows for time and space to see what I really want.  It's a tentative step towards independence, totally on my own since before marriage and no family living with me.
• Will learning to do for myself be enough?  Regular healthcare is nearby.  Commitments to work on current projects here will continue on a weekly basis.  [My candidacy, however, effectively ends when leaving this District.]  Will I also be able to join in with other interesting groups in the city, like a writing group, a dancing group?  Will I become part of smaller communities within a larger community?
• Once I'm free to leave at the end of this six months, will I want to leave?  Will I want to live somewhere else?  Will I still want to experiment, to take risks, to live in another country, speak another language?  Will I have an interest in learning another language during these six months -- to prepare for living in another country?  Or will I decide that living alone in the city is enough?
• Will the first-ever check I receive last week from Montana Senior News for a story I'd written ("Today I Fly") be enough motivation to keep me writing?  To spread my wings through writing so there is no need to go someplace else?  Or will my need to risk and write be the way to go? 
• I want to write.  I want to take risks.   Is this the combination that will make my writing a success, particularly at my age?  Are these the kinds of stories that will motivate others to also take risks in their later years?  The tendency as I get older is to stay comfortable.  I get used to a routine that seems safe but doesn't allow for much excitement in life, or to generate much new learning.  It, instead, allows for my becoming stale, uninteresting, lacking new ideas or freshness.  How to avoid that?  Not sure.  
•  Do I need to be physically moving?  Can I be the one experiencing all the new and the risky and then writing about it?  Can I experience it living in one place or must I go out of my comfort zone in order to write about it? 
• That's what I'm hoping these next six months will tell me.

With Hillary's long journey and many successes along the way, will she be able to achieve her goal of the Presidency?  There's no question that she is ready.  There's no question that she has the ability and experience.  There's no question that she is a positive influence on the rest of us who struggle to achieve our own goals.

What is Hillary's impact?  She shows us how to shoot for the stars.  When she gets knocked down, she jumps back up.  Not once, not even twice, but over and over again.  She is persistent; she never gives up.  "Keep working toward your goals," she models.  And if I don't meet my goals?  Maybe, just maybe, merely trying for them will create a heck of a ride!

AN OPEN LETTER TO BERNIE SANDERS

It's amazing, Bernie.  Your stamina is keeping you going day after day, month after month, with little rest in-between.  You arrive at your rallies, bare-headed and bald, ready to go whether it's rain, shine, or just downright cold (where's your hat?!).  You jump onto the plane, fly cross country or across ocean, jump off the plane, do what you need to do, then it's back to the plane again, retracing steps or creating new ones to the  next place, the next talk, the next rally.  When do you stop?!

You are not young anymore, Bernie.  In fact, you are my age, mid-seventies.  At this age, bodies are not meant to sustain constant abuse.  I know -- I've tried outrunning my years but it hasn't worked.  How is it for you Bernie?  Let's take stock.

When you begin your campaign, it seems a little like Donald Trump's -- not taken very seriously by you, thought of more like an experiment?  You seem relaxed, clear-thinking, speaking about ideas already voiced when you've been interviewed periodically as a Senator outside the Capitol building.  But this is new.  Here is your opportunity to have a wider audience, much wider, and it is invigorating.  You come across as a smiling, grandfatherly, well-meaning figure -- relaxed and ready to go.

Many months and many miles later, what do I hear, what do I see peering from my screen?  For the most part, the smiling and relaxed Bernie is gone.  Except for times when greeting picture-takers or supporters on a one-to-one basis, your personna comes across as grumpy, short-tempered, and argumentative.  Your words at rallies come more slowly; your voice more gravelly.  But these aren't the only problems that have emerged of late.  Consider the following.

Sarcasm has now become part of your public speaking, like in debates.  When responding to Hillary's assertions that she took big banks to task, you sarcastically berate her with something like, "And I bet they were really scared when you did that!"  Waving hands and arms in the air, you sound and look decidedly un-presidential.  

It isn't just the words you speak but also words from people like Dr. Song who precedes you at a New York rally.  He uses the phrase "corporate whore" referring, as everyone understands, to Hillary Clinton.  If the phrase weren't bad enough with a large amount of the crowd cheering, it takes you a full night of sleep to realize what had happened then respond with a tweet of "inappropriate" language.

More and more, especially in New York, your approach has been to use personal negative attacks against Hillary.  This is particularly puzzling because "going negative" is something you vow over and over that you will not do during your campaign.  In your talk now and in your campaign ads, you imply that Hillary can't be trusted and that she is corrupted by money.  You use baseless accusations to accuse her of illegal actions.  As a congressman, you are aware that, while in office, you cannot accept speaker fees.  But Hillary is not in office when she gives her speeches, so she has every right to accept fees.  You imply that her fees are taken illegally, or that she is corrupt because she take the fees.

You note the importance of transparency in the presidential race and keep demanding copies of Hillary's speeches.  And yet, Bernie, transparency is not a part of your campaign.  For example, this past weekend, you fly yourself and Jane, children and grandchildren, to Italy and the Vatican.  You say you are going despite the fact the trip is not part of your campaign; you would never forgive yourself if you didn't go, you say.  Prior to your leaving, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC asks your wife how you are going to pay for the trip.  "I don't know," she responds.  This is someone who, from all accounts, figures your taxes every year.  Andrea later approaches Jeff Weaver, your Campaign Manager, with the same question.  "The Campaign will pay for it," he quietly responds.  There is no follow up question then and none since your return.

How, Bernie, can your campaign pay for your trip to the Vatican if the trip (and your speech) is not a part of your political campaign, something you repeatedly admitted?  Politicians time and again are tripped up by misuse of political campaign funds.  It would seem that you demand transparency on the part of Hillary Clinton when she gives speeches (about which there is no evidence of corruption), and yet, when it comes to you, there is no transparency at all.

The latest violations from Hillary's campaign, your campaign alleges, are that she and the DNC are in cahoots about a joint funding account and it's illegal, Jeff Weaver says.  "It must be stopped," Jeff Weaver says.  The truth is, Bernie, that the account Hillary has with DNC is also offered to your campaign.  It is signed early on, but never used.  Just as Donald Trump realizes that delegate-hunting is something he should have started long ago, so now your campaign is also found wanting.

It's sad.  "Hypocrisy reigns supreme," says someone describing your campaign.  Your current bombastic, self-righteous, and dishonest approach to running a presidential campaign is disappointing, to say the least.  How will it all end?  One of your advisers accuses Hillary of making "a pact with the devil".  Both you and your campaign need to get back to a higher level of rhetoric if we can expect to heal wounds and hold the White House this fall.   




 

PLOMing -- again

I got word the other evening from Carol's List that they are endorsing me as a pro-choice Democratic candidate for MT State House District 40 (Carol's List is the Montana group that works in conjunction with Emily's List, the national group that helps pro-choice Democratic women attain public office).  I stood up a little straighter and stuck out my chest a little further.  What an honor!  I've also been invited to attend a one-day training session with other endorsees of Carol's List in Helena in a week's time -- and to bring my "key campaign staff or lead volunteer".  I went to bed feeling excited and hopeful.  This is one endorsement for which I'd been encouraged to apply, and it has come through.  I'll celebrate and make plans tomorrow, I tell myself.

In the clear light of day, however, reality hits.  The catch in this whole thing is that there is no one with whom I can truly celebrate and I have no "key campaign staff or lead volunteer" to go with me to the training.  Running "blue" for office in a very "red" part of a "red" state can be a lonely endeavor.  This was true last time around in 2014, but that was an experiment and not taken too seriously.  This time my goal is to be out in the community, starting a conversation, mostly listening and learning, and also sharing my point of view (knowing full well that achieving election is a long way down the road, if ever -- gotta start somewhere though).

After several days of PLOMing (Poor Little Ole Me), I've decided to reframe my whole outlook, pulling myself out of this funk.  I can view this episode as an opportunity instead of a drawback.  How do I do that?

1.  Face the fact that I am a volunteer.  I get to choose where and how I spend my energies and my time.  If that's true, I must take responsibility for those choices and accept any results coming from them, whether positive or negative.
2.  Remind myself that change is a part of life (as I remind my daughter).  Life is different now than when I was in my thirties, forties.  Then, there were many other women who felt as I did, who changed with the times, who came to realize their own worth and to build on it. We formed consciousness-raising groups, encouraged and supported each other along the way.
     Now the "red-headed-ness" tenor of the country tries to quash that in any way possible.  "We know what's best for you," they say, "particularly if you're poor.  We will go backwards and take away your rights to affordable healthcare, to decide what is best for you when it comes to all healthcare including abortions.  We will not help you reach your full potential:  no equal pay for equal work, no affordable child care, no healthy planet on which to live, no being different from us, etc. etc.  It's NO!NO!NO!"  I can scream sometimes with the frustration of it all!
3.  Understand that there is at least one advantage to aging.  One can learn from past experience and become wiser in the process.  As tempting as it may seem at times, I will not go back to a time of non-awareness (as on "I Love Lucy" in other words).  I will not un-learn all the lessons from the past.
4.  Re-visit my actions and desires since moving to Montana.  How can I take what I've been doing and turn that into a meaningful, more uplifting project for the foreseeable future?  This election process in which I'm involved can be much more than imposing my viewpoint on others.  Through listening and learning from local residents, I can better appreciate their experiences and value their approach to life.  In that process, I learn more about our town -- as it is, as it was.  Much of the written history has been written by men, focused on men, like miners and ranchers, but very little on women and what they've achieved.  It's time to change that.
     Aging is not an easy process, for men or women.  I'm aware that one way for men to find solace and understanding in that process is to relate to other men through common ground, even if philosophies of life may differ.  For example, if enjoyment comes through a hobby or sports, relating to others on that level brings about a camaraderie that can transcend other differences.  The same thing can be true with women.  In my case, a greater understanding of other women's experiences, finding commonalities in our backgrounds despite philosophical differences, can bring about greater appreciation for their (and my) unique paths in life (hasn't worked so far with my sisters but maybe it's too early to give up).
     It's for this reason that recently I had been considering researching the process of aging in women.  Research would take the form of interviews with older women, learning from them how they have been able to work with the hand they'd been dealt.
5.  Use suggestions from others in the community (longtime residents and particularly female, those women who describe themselves as moderate Republicans -- and there is at least one, younger community activists) who will help guide my path.

Along the way, I may be able to complete a goal I'd set for myself in 2013.  It was to tell the stories of women in our community, compile them into one volume, and include them as part of the archives in Musselshell Valley Historical Museum (on whose Board I still sit).  What better culmination to a project that originally looked so daunting (activities connected to election-running, learning more about area history through eyes of women, create a bond with women who seem to sit on another side of the proverbial fence, and complete a long-held goal).

All the steps above can be achieved, more gradually than not.  But, if anything goes right at all, it may be that in my eyes, "red" won't seem so red, nor "blue" so blue.  If we get to purple and create some authentic understanding among us, that will be a healthy improvement!  And maybe a lot less PLOMing...

 

What are you Doing about the Real World, may I ask?

"Babies are MURDERED here," reads a hand-made sign as I pull into the parking lot of my destination.  A young woman holds the sign over her head and, across the long space of green, she gazes directly at my car.  Well, that's an interesting question, I muse, climbing out and beginning my vigil.  Just where is "here"?

My first thought of course is ISIS, or Daesh (a better name to use since the group hates it).  Yes, Daesh cruelly tortures/kills babies, children, adults, every one they hate.  I think of the toddler whose body washes up on a Mediterranean beach this summer.  Yes, he is murdered by many -- those in his country who make it impossible for families to be safe, those who peddle in human trafficking, and those who build fences bordering anti-refugee countries.  I think of the 14-year-old who has just starved to death early April, 2016.  Yes, Assad's Syrian government obstructs humanitarian aid to his village for the express purpose of killing him and his family.  I think of the very young to the very old who are murdered because of overwhelming numbers of guns (including assault rifles) flooding our country.  Yes, it happens daily because of the greed of NRA in the name of gun manufacturers.

But here?  No, Virginia, babies are not murdered at Planned Parenthood Health Centers.  Instead, violence here comes from extremists who, as in Colorado, murder bystanders in the parking lot or patients and staff inside the medical center.  Despite that, courageous doctors and nurses carry on.  They provide health care for women who arrive for medical consultations, preventive care, screenings, birth control pills.  The patient may also decide that, for her own health, an abortion, a constitutionally-sanctioned medical procedure, is necessary.

Open your eyes, Virginia, to where death really occurs.  Help ease burdens of refugee families.  After all, as Jesus taught in your Bible in Matthew 25:40, "Verily, I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."  Welcome to your neighborhood someone who may not look like you.  Help prevent rampant overflow of guns across our country.  Become educated on gun safety and how it can eliminate deaths of young children.  Join the real world.  Contribute time and money to those programs that can REALLY make a difference in peoples' lives. 

GAMES PEOPLE PLAY, especially politicians

I'm a second-time around candidate for State House in Montana.  I'm in it again because no one else will run in my district as a Democrat.  I don't mind researching and arguing my side of an issue (although my debate skills leave something to be desired).  And I can't bear not being represented during this particular presidential election year.

Puzzling situations develop.  This is one.

A phone call from a friend asks a question.  "Are you going to the Town Hall meeting?"  Since I didn't see the notice in our local paper, she explains where and when it will be held and names the sponsor:  one of the three Republicans running for the same office as I. 

I have had somewhat-friendly dealings with this person who has a part-time job at City Hall.  I call him, leave a message on his answer machine.  "I'd like to attend your meeting [professional courtesy call, so to speak].  I could introduce myself and say a few words."

His response is recorded on my machine.  "The simple answer is 'No,' he says.  "This is my political event sponsored by me to get support for my campaign.  Your coming would be irregular at best if others got you confused as one of my supporters."  I'm taken aback.

Next morning, I call another Democrat friend.  He will be attending the meeting that evening and suggests I do as well.  (The meeting will be held in a room at our public school.)  However, I remember viewing gatherings of other candidates and see that the candidate has the right to have a protestor removed.  I would prefer not to be removed.  Maybe my competitor gets the wrong message from me on his phone.  I can make clear that I don't have to say a thing.  Instead, I can observe and listen.  Isn't that a compliment?

I call my competitor and this time he answers the phone.  I clarify my intent (to listen and learn) and again he responds, "No.  I'm spending money on this meeting and want to get support for my campaign."  I'm actually struck by the imperiousness of his tone and attitude.  Is this typical of all Republicans or only those like Donald Trump?

I don't attend.  Two Democrat friends do and report back.  It seems to be an unusual "town hall".  Introductions are made of three other Republican candidates (for other offices) as well as himself and a few words said by each one.  No discussion or questions are elicited from the small group who attends.  Some refreshments are provided.

I ask myself:  What is he up to?  Is he trying to hide something?  Or is this just a "Republican thing"?  Maybe I'll find out tomorrow.  He is scheduled to speak 10 minutes at the Senior Citizen luncheon.  Although I will be late to another noon meeting, I will stop by -- to observe, learn, and listen.






 

UNLEASHED:  We Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!
      [Elizabeth Warren says "there's no virtue in remaining silent" when it comes to Donald Trump.  I take her at her word.  Thus, as part of my run for MT State House District 40, I presented the following to about 40 Senior Citizens at lunch on Thursday this week.]

There's been huge unrest lately:  mass shootings, shootings of young, unarmed African-Americans by police, disrespect shown to the President of our country to his face.  Donald Trump precipitates the "birther" movement; he questions the birthplace of our President and accuses him of being Muslim rather than Christian.  Is this Donald's first try as a Presidential candidate?  If so, it falls flat.

But, in 2015, the time for a presidential bid comes around again and, just like starting a fire, all Donald has to do is strike a match.  He calls Mexicans rapists and killers; promises a high wall that Mexico will pay for; wants to deport millions of immigrants; wants to prevent Muslims from entering our country; he will force military to follow his commands whether they're legal or not.

Donald attracts followers by the thousands.  They are more angry, less educated, all white.  He calls his competitors names, mocks them for their low poll numbers, brags on his poll numbers incessantly.  He wants to "make America great again" and demands supporters raise their right hand and pledge to him (where have we heard that in the past?).  When protestors speak up, Donald screams, "Get 'em out! Get 'em out!  If you want to punch a protestor, I'll pay your legal fees!  Get 'em out!"  Violence erupts; protestors are surrounded, pushed, kicked, shoved.  With each new rally, violence escalates.  "Aren't we having fun?" he yells at the crowd with a wide grin on his face.  "We're having fun!"

Donald's delegate numbers increase greater than that of all other competitors.  Fear clutches hearts of Republican leadership (is THIS what we've created?).  Donald can't be their nominee; he will never become President, will he?  He has mocked Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, Muslims, even the disabled -- everyone different from himself.  They will not vote for him.  Are there enough whites-only to vote him in?  Consider women.  Videos show Donald calling women all kinds of disgusting names.  His disdain knows no bounds.  Will women stand for that?

Republican leaders discuss rules for the Convention in Cleveland.  Maybe it will be a contested convention.  Donald threatens that if he isn't named the Republican nominee, his supporters will riot.  The seed has been planted.  More fighting, more blood.  Is this what we want in our President of the United States?  Do we want to repeat European history, like in Germany with the Brown Shirts?

Donald preaches it's "Us versus Them":  "He points to the protestors and yells, 'These are not the people who made our country great.  These are the people that are destroying our country.'  Somehow, it's the collective Us that must defeat the Them -- and the stakes are high.  The future of the greatest country the world has ever known depends on the outcome.  The idea of 'Us versus Them' leads so easily to violence."

Donald tells his supporters at his rallies that "America is no longer great.  He tells them whom to blame.  He tells them the reason these losers are dragging America down is we have become too politically correct, too scared, too weak to stop them.  He tells them he will pay their legal fees if they want to do what's necessary.  'There used to be consequences,' he says.  The crowd knows exactly what he's asking:  Make consequences real again."

This is ugly but it is understood.  "There's an explanation and there's a solution.  It's dangerous, it's violent but not unclear.  That's why Donald is something different and more dangerous in American life.  He is a man who wants to suppress dissent with violence, a man who believes America's problem is that it's too gentle on its dissidents.  He wants politics to be backed by force.  He wants a security force unleashed from political correctness.  And he wants a country where protesting has consequences."  I wonder to myself how Donald would have played here in Roundup back in the 1930's when coal miners went out on strike.  What would he have done with them?

I leave you with this quote from Martin Niemoller:
     
     First they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out --
           Because I was not a Socialist.
     Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I did not speak out --
          Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
     Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out --
          Because I was not a Jew.
     Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Make no mistake.  Donald Trump is dangerous.

You may ask yourself, "But what can I do about this?"

1.  You can talk to friends, family, neighbors.  How were the coal miners treated when they went out on strike in the 1930's?
2.  You can follow Trump's rallies on TV.  Watch what happens.  Are his rallies becoming more violent?
3.  Last but not least.  YOU CAN VOTE!

Reference:  Matt Yglesias and colleague

 

GIVE_ME_A_BREAK!

My world is upside-down -- on purpose.  People are trying to tell me something is true when it is actually false.

Take Donald Trump.  Donald tells the world he's a unifier.  In actuality, he pushes his supporters to fight with protestors ("Throw 'em out!  Throw 'em out!  Throw 'em out!" he screams through curled lips in a purple face, "Aren't we having fun!")

Donald tells the world he talks to police in Chicago and follows their advice to shut down his rally.  In actuality, the police chief tells us that Donald's campaign makes the decision to shut down the rally after all supporters and protestors are inside, then they notify the police.  After the announcement that the rally is cancelled, violence breaks out on the floor.

Donald tells the world it is the protestors at his rally who are hitting his (Donald's) supporters.  In actuality, we see a Donald supporter smash the head of a protestor as the protestor walks by on the stairs  -- and the protestor is handcuffed while the perpetrator is  told to go back to his seat.

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich each tell me they would make a much better president than Barack Obama because President Obama is so horrible -- over and over and over again.  Then I read the following achievements of President Obama, listed no more than 15 months ago (by a Canadian no less!)

Under President Obama's watch:

• Corporate profits are at record highs
• The country's adding 200,000 jobs per month
• Unemployment is below 6% [currently below 5%]
• U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries
• The dollar is at its strongest levels in years
• Stock market is near record highs [at the time]
• Gasoline prices are falling
• There's no inflation
• Interest rates are the lowest in 30 years [at the time]
• U.S. oil imports are declining
• U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing [at the time]
• Deficit is rapidly declining
• The wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money
• America is leading the world once again and respected internationally -- in sharp contrast to the Bush years.  Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden.

Richard Brunt, the Canadian who authored this list, asks if we Americans want "to vote for the [Republican] party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of?  This defies reason," he goes on.  "When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?"

And that isn't all.  Another list of 340 accomplishments, every one of them with a citation so no one can dismiss them out of hand, is also available.  These are just a few:

• On his first full day in office, [Obama] froze White House salaries for the duration of the Great Recession.
• He created the massive TARP financial banking and rescue plan and forced banks and other entities to pay back virtually all of the bailout money.
• As of January, 2016, a record 64 consecutive months of overall job growth.
• Ordered 65 executives who took bailout money to cut their own pay until they paid back all bailout money.
• Tax rates for average working families are the lowest since 1950.
• Created a Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making.

So, Republican presidential candidates, don't try to convince us that up is down and down is up.  We know better.  Barack Obama has been our legitimate and outstanding President for almost eight years, overwhelmingly voted in twice.  His accomplishments are legion.  You should be so lucky!

Sources:
     Detroit Free Press, "Americans don't know how good they have it with Obama"
     PCTC*:  "President Obama has done a LOT!  A List of 340 Accomplishments So Far, With Citations"