Do I wake or sleep?

 Inspired by Elizabeth's post...

Monday, I was walking from a class on the UWS to my evening job in Midtown. I was waiting to cross Columbus Avenue at that triangle just uptown of Lincoln Center. I was JUST about to dart across when the light turned red--as I stopped, I saw an elderly woman across the street go down HARD on the sidewalk. I was horrified but could not cross because there was now a shitton of traffic going past. I was waiting anxiously, catching glimpses of this woman lying on the sidewalk, and seeing people gather around her. Finally the light changed and I ran across. By now there were at least 10 people there--offering to help her up, I asked if we should call an ambulance, people were offering advice. People holding this woman's hand, saying "we're here for you." A young woman was walking past, paused, and said "you should call an ambulance. You REALLY should call an ambulance." People still standing by anxiously. Young woman walked down the sidewalk, came back and identified herself as a Physician's Assistant. She said we REALLY should call an ambulance and pretty much took it from there. Some guy in some kind of official-looking vehicle drove up and Young Woman had taken charge at that point, telling him "I'm a healthcare professional, she needs..." I finally drifted away, feeling secure this woman would be helped.

New Yorkers--we got your back. And I loved this because this applies to everyone. Iranians and Iraqis flying in to JFK--we got your back. Fuck Trump. We got your back.

Today. Walking to evening job, cross over to Fifth Avenue at 51st where there is a Banana Republic store. In the foyer is a pigeon, trapped, banging against the glass doors leading to the outside. I, and a number of other spectators notice this all at the same time. I jump forward to open up one of the three doors to encourage the bird to fly out. Another spectator does the same thing. Between the two of us we manage to keep open the three doors and the bird flies away. 

New Yorker--we got your back. Even the pigeons ;) 

Fuck Trump. We got your back. The funny thing is, the stereotype is that New Yorkers are cold and disinterested--this has never been my experience. New Yorkers take very seriously their stated values of inclusivity, liberalism. To all our friends flying into JFK from Iraq, Iran, Syria--we will not let you languish, all those . We have your back.

Come on, guys. An angry statement directed at the President--on a GUN? What the FUCK? Have thes eguys learned nothing from what just happened?

I see this all ending badly.

I think it's really depressing when, in the first wave of reaction to this horrible event yesterday, there's more attention paid to the so-called "finger pointing" and "blame" than to, you know, six people who were murdered in cold blood and how a political system was hijacked yesterday. Because let's remember who the real victims are here--ranty demogogues who suddenly realize their words have an impact and are now scrambling to cover their asses by washing their hands of responsibility. There are several examples but this in particular struck me. Judson Phillips, the head of a Tea Party networking organization, issued this statement:

( Cut for political musings )

The whole thing is just so goddamn sad. I've been wavering on the death penalty lately but this guy sure deserves it. A nine year old girl? Jesus.

I don't know what it is about some guys--yes, in my experience this generalization is correct, it is always men--who feel the need to correct women. It is really annoying. Today a friend of mine (Beth D.), from when I went to HS in New Hampshire, posted a link on FB about this new White House seder, and another friend of mine (Tim A., a conservative for what it's worth) responded "Kinda odd seeing as we just gave Israel the diplomatic finger last week." Another guy responded some kind of statement basically about how it was all contrived, everything out of the WH (from any administration) was calculated or whatever, but I skipped over it and responded to Tim "Well, diplomatic relations between us and Israel the state, and our cultural support for American Jews are two different things--even many Jews do not necessarily support Israel's policies. (And in the '50s-'60s the disparity was even more noticeable--Southern Jews as a group explicitly did NOT support Israel, they saw such support as undermining American patriotism.) Often I, a WASP, am far more pro-Israel than some of my Jewish friends! But I do think this is cool, if you're going to have an Easter Egg roll and a White House Xmas tree, why not a seder?"

Third Guy responds "Clara, this may be true and would still be entirely beside the point. What is handed to the press involves a *perception* game. Even the most simplistic of associations (Jewish-American & Israeli) are valid when playing in the public eye. And remember, he's making a statement to the Israelis just as loudly. He is trying to diffuse ANY knee jerk reaction of appearing to be anti-jewish administration."

Bitch Switch--ON. Do NOT talk down to me like that. God, I get so pissed off, with a white-hot passion, as that kind of condescension. You are not here to teach me, and you and every other computer-and car-salesman had better get that through your head. I wrote back coldly "Please don't tell me what is beside the point. You interpreted the article as a strategic PR-aimed release from the administration; I was responding to the apparent contradiction, as voiced by Tim, that a White House-hosted seder should coincide with our perhaps temporary cooling of diplomatic relations with Israel. I didn't address your take on it at all. I have no opinion on whether or not the release was cynically motivated and in fact do not concede your assertion that that is THE point."

I find the angrier I get online in political discussions (and this wasn't even that! Jeez, I wasn't responding to him, this was an historical highlight about Jews in America!), the colder and more Spockianly articulate I become. I think it's the WASP in me.

So--obviously some pretty big legislation was passed yesterday and some strong opinions were expressed. Now most of my friends are pretty liberal, and by and large the opinions I was reading on my Facebook feed were positive. There were, of course, some not so. I fully believe that there is principled opposition to this legislation--I don't agree with any of the arguments I've heard, either because I didn't think they added up or I'm just ideologically opposed to the premises of the argument--but I know that people I respect and love do not necessarily support this.

It can be really difficult to weigh in on the subject--even to go onto Facebook and read what others have to say--without getting emotional or taking it personally. It's a really tough line to draw. I like to see passionate discussion and no one should be afraid to disagree, but when 1) you don't know someone, and 2) you're discussing things online, without the context of face-to-face communication, things can get--unattractive. This is why I tend to reserve my political discussion for LJ, rather than FB. Too many friends on FB, plus its format doesn't facilitate thoughtful discussion as well as a blog community does. When I do post political on FB, it's usually a cri du coeur, something that bothers me, or elates me, so much I can't hold it in.

A few weeks ago, Patricia posted something on FB about health care reform, and one of her friends, someone I don't know, asked "who pays for it?" I responded (my first response to Patricia's thread) "since health care reform is something that benefits all of us, like education, we all pay via taxes." Question seeking factual answer, factual answer given with underlying reasoning, right? He responded with this diatribe on how he wasn't going to pay for boob jobs and illegal immigrants and nose surgery and I don't know what-all--like, apres ca, le deluge, this very partisan, emotional post. Dude, if I'd known you were spoiling for a fight, I never would've responded. And he started it off with "Nope. Sorry." I have to say, as soon as you start off a response like that, I click off. It's condescending and rude. "Nope. *shakes head regretfully* Your attempt to impress me just didn't work, so I'll be brief and dismissive. Sorry. Better luck next time." It's an aggressive response couched in falsely "nice" language. I notice it mostly from guys, whereas women tend to use the "Um..." or call people "honey." Again, as soon as I see that, I stop reading--if you take an argument this personally, I'd rather not engage. I was polite to you, and I expect the same. Which is basically what I said to him, something along the lines of "you obviously have your mind already made up so there's no point in discussing this." He responded again but I never read it. Dude, don't know you, now I don't want to, stop trying to pick a fight.

So--I posted last night another cri du coeur, "Yes, we could!" because yes, I am very happy this bill passed. Almost everyone who responded agreed but a friend of mine from elementary school wrote something about how "not 'we,' the majority of Americans didn't want this*, only some people in DC" (paraphrase). I started to type out a geeky, over-explanation about how I was referencing Obama's campaign slogan, don't take it literally, it's a rhetorical "we," I was not speaking for all Americans but those who support health care reform., and we live in a republic, not a perfect democracy and all the reps who voted for this bill are presumably acting on the wishes of their constituents, because they know they'll be voted out if they don't. Then I decided--you know what, let him have his say. As I said it's a really tough line to draw, to read what people are saying, about an issue that you feel so passionately, and not respond sometimes. Michael's (my friend Michael Mackey) an old friend of mine, haven't seen him in forever but I remember several months ago he very respectfully asked for people's thoughts on health care reform, even if he had his own specific opinions. He's pretty disappointed obviously, but he's a good American who's trying, just like the rest of us.

But then there was the hilarious exchange on my friend Jim Denny's page. Jim posted in favor of the bill, said something about making health care affordable for everyone, rich or poor, and a friend of his started off his response "Jim, you sound like Adolph Hitler." I busted out laughing at that. A couple of other people posted and he answered every single with with this long diatribe--this is where you are crossing a line. Your Hitler response just makes you look ridiculous, but you don't get to take over the discussion and essentially try to shout down people. (That drives me crazy on YouTube as well, when people have to respond to every single person who expresses an opinion contrary to theirs, as though that other person really is wrong and they have to correct them. Crazily enough, you really see it with ladies' singles figure skating videos. There are some crazy FS-loving bishes, yo.) Jim wrote back "Yeah, been goose-steppin' around the neighborhood all evening looking for some hard-working young Americans who can't afford health care I can herd up and gas." I'd been thinking of invoking Godwin, but when I read what Jim wrote, I posted "Let me know if you need a fellow Aryan to help, it's been awhile since I've asked anyone for their papers, I need the practice."

*I read this several times on FB last night, that supposedly most Americans "don't want" this. I'd really like to see some reputable sources for that, because I've been reading the opposite, that Americans DO want health care reform. Of course then you have to get into what questions were asked on these surveys, how specific were they, and when were they conducted. My point is that it's sort of meaningless to say something so vague. At any rate, it's still a faulty argument, IMO--most Americans didn't want the civil rights act either. Most Southerners didn't want slavery to end. Most Jordanians STILL don't want the peace treaty with Israel. You may not believe that health care is a human right, but if you're arguing with people who do believe that, invoking majority rule is not going to convince them.

Guys. GUYS. I'm talking to YOU, "Governor" Paterson, and Charlie Rangel and the girlfriend-slashing rep from Queens, Montserrate, and our latest embarrassment, the ertswhile Representative Massa.

STOP RUINING THE BRAND. Okay, we all know the drill--Democrats get caught with women, (conservative) Republicans get caught with men. Democrats are populares, Republicans are optimates (heh, a little Roman Republic history there). Didn't you get the memo? What the hell is going on here? New York Democrats are a MESS right now. Who has the gall to try to maim his girlfriend with a razor and then not only refuse to allow himself to be censored by the state senate, but then tries to run again and steals Obama's election imagery and slogans? And Paterson is a pathetic trainwreck, an incurious, uninsightful party boy who is in way over his head. I want to say I'm disappointed but no--I'm not surprised at all. However I am disappointed in Rangel--a natural leader, a gifted politician and he turns out to be helping himself on the side. And OMG, MASSA, what a complete trainwreck. Dude, find a narrative and stick with it. And stop trying to blame someone--anyone--else for what you did. When Glenn Beck writes off your Democrat-bashing narrative in disgust, you know you've got problems.

Regarding infidelity in politicians--generally I don't care. That is between them and their spouses, as long as it doesn't affect their governing/decision-making. But when they're hypocrites, like Henry Hyde, that bothers me. I don't necessarily think they should resign, but obviously it completely nullifies the moral authority they claim to have.* And when they're promoting anti-gay legislation and they turn out to be gay--they are fair game, man. If you're going to stick your nose into the private lives of my friends and family and make them into 2nd-class citizens, then I have no sympathy when you're caught in the bathroom tapping in Morse code DO ME NOW to the stranger in the next stall.

*Spitzer is a special case--yes, he was a hypocrite not so much in words but because he made his career as a moral crusader, built his rep as AG on it, including targeting johns. Also after he'd been elected he did not Play Well with Others, he made a lot of enemies in Albany, and after he was caught he was a quadriplegic duck. He never would've been able to effect ANY legislation after the scandal so yeah--buh-bye. That's a tragic case, because he was actually very capable and intelligent. Unlike his replacement.

But seriously, New York Democrats. Clean it the fuck up. (Though in all fairness, the Democratic Party has basically kicked out Montserrate.) Stop embarrassing us. We don't look any better than Illinois or Lousiana right now.

There seems to be a lot of second-guessing about Bloomberg's smaller-than-expected margin of victory over Thompson--apparently it was only 5 points instead a projected 12 or so. Second-guessing and what seems to me to be an attempt to force this into a narrative, that being Bloomberg's supposed erosion of influence. Frankly I think all it means is that not many people here in the city voted on Tuesday because they all knew that Bloomberg would win. Thompson was nothing, a cipher. All he had going for him was that he wasn't Bloomberg, but he stood for nothing and he made a lot of basic, amateurish errors in his campaign (misspellings on campaign materials and in commercials, poor coordination with staff, etc.). A hapless effort overall.

I said something about this on Alex's FB page but to expand on it--I have a problem with the Democratic party in New York State. They're this well-entrenched party machine, like Tammany Hall, especially here in the city, so the only way to break through is to put in your time and eventually you'll get rewarded with a slot on the ticket. And so we, the voters, are presented with a bunch of talentless party hacks for our Democratic choices--I mean, Bill Thompson? Ferrer? Paterson? The ONLY way Paterson got on the Spitzer ticket for Lt. Governor was because he'd put in the time--he has zero leadership qualities and is unelectable. And with anemic choices like Ferrer and Thompson, we get trounced by more charismatic mavericks like Bloomberg and Guiliani--guys who actually have a chance at breaking through the pack because the pack is so much thinner in the NYC Republican party. Bloomberg was a Democrat originally--he had to switch parties to have a shot at the nomination. (And then switched again to become an Independent.) And look who he ran against in 2001? Mark Green, whom I actually don't mind personally or as Public Advocate, but is a bland, by-the-numbers leader. I think he does better snarking on the side, because he diesn't really impress me as a leader--I reacted quite badly to his negative campaigning in 2001.

The exception to this is Anthony Weiner, who is a NYC Democrat and I love him. He's like a charismatic geek--kind of like Bloomberg, now that I think of it. Very intelligent and a hard worker. I'd like to see him run again in four years.

There's an interesting article in this week's New York Magazine about Caroline Kennedy's quest for the appointment to Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat. I have to say, the article has made me lose respect for Governor Paterson. Apparently he just loooooved being the center of attention during the whole thing and was deliberately stoking the drama to make himself appear more...uh, executive, I guess. This struck me:

Keeping the speculation alive meant Paterson stayed in the spotlight, a golden gift for a man who hates being characterized as an “accidental governor” and a man who needs to run for the office, for the first time, next year. Often in Washington Paterson seemed simply to be ecstatic that his games with the media were keeping the attention so focused on him.

The "accidental Governor"? Johnson was the "Accidental President" and he accomplished more that Kennedy did! In fact Johnson was arguably one of the most important Presidents of the 20th century, because of his pushing of the Civil Rights Acts. Succeeding to office is a long and time-honored tradition. What matters is what you do when you get there.

This also gives me pause:

Yet Paterson wants to do more than cut the tension; he wants desperately, even more than most politicians, to be liked. Almost as much as he wants to be taken seriously.

...

"...Look at how he travels: At the Democratic convention in Denver, you’d see Jon Corzine and he’d have two people with him. You’d see David Paterson and he’d have 60 people with him.”

Look, I can appreciate his baggage with his disability but the last thing I want in a politician is a "desperate need to be liked." A politician should try to straddle the line between 1) the natural (not desperate) need to be liked, because it helps you play well with others (important in politics), and 2) the need to be a leader, and be your own person. And the way to be taken seriously is to take yourself seriously. Show that you are a force with which to be reckoned through your actions. Don't surround yourself with machinations and drama and an entourage. That just seems silly, and sort of pathetic.

After a brief appearance on CNN’s American Morning, the governor had settled into the back seat of his car to rest before an interview with Capital News 9, an Albany-based cable channel. Then, without warning, his aides scrambled, leaving dust and baffled reporters in their wake.

Later, word was passed that the governor had a serious headache. Later still, Paterson claimed to have eaten some bad sushi the night before. “Right,” says a reporter who covers the state capital. “It’s just more drama from Paterson.”

“Welcome to the world of David,” says an elected official who has known Paterson for years.

Oy.

I will say, Gillibrand seems pretty cool. I thought Caroline Kennedy was an interesting choice at first--she certainly does have cred with the new President, one consideration--but after the Blago debacle, and her interview plus her voting history, it's clear she wouldn't have worked on many levels.

I've been thinking about the choice of Palin this weekend. I had very mixed feelings at first--I desperately want a woman in the Oval Office. I want to see myself reflected up there. No offense to my many white male friends :) but I'm tired of the same type of people getting elected to positions of power. I'm tired of the message being sent, over and over--you don't belong here. You are not welcome here. And yes, when you never see yourself up there, that IS the message. At the same time, you certainly don't vote based on identity alone--you vote on the issues. But I won't deny, the identity is getting more and more important when more than 20 years after Geraldine Ferraro got the VP nom, we STILL haven't had a woman VP or President, or even a shot at one. STILL. India has had a head of state before the US has. I was very disappointed that Hillary, whom I love, did not get the nomination but with Obama--well, okay, we're still making history, a new path is being forged, that's good too.

Then the news on Friday. I was stunned, and at first, very impressed. No matter who wins, history will be made. We could have a woman in the Office! I figured she was probably conservative but I will admit, the allure of having a woman in that VP slot was pretty strong. Then I did some research on her stances on the issues. She's very pro-life--calls herself a "Feminist for Life." Uh, no. You cannot call yourself a feminist if you would force me to have a baby if I'm raped. No. If I get raped and a pregnancy results, the FIRST thing I'm doing is getting an abortion. You do not get to tell me what to do with my body. Full stop. She was coy on creationism being taught in schools (the fact that this is EVEN AN ISSUE in this country makes my teeth hurt. Creationism is for CHURCH!!!! It is not science!)--she wanted both to be "discussed," framing it as "don't be afraid of information." Gu-whuh? Creationism is not information. It is an attempt to explain how we came into being with no way to test it. Which is why it's religion and NOT SCIENCE. And she doesn't think global warming is man-made. Which is just silly and ignorant.

And with this whole pregnant-teenage-daughter thing--well, it illustrates how silly the abstinence-only dogma she promotes. And finally, if you're trying to pass laws that invade my privacy, you'd better be prepared for your family's privacy to be invaded. Someone commented on the NYTimes site: "Family decisions are a private matter for most people, but they should not be private for someone who has no respect for the decisions of other families. Because Governor Palin wants to use the power of the government to force all women to be just like her, voters should be entitled to examine Governor Palin's family life to view the consequences of her policies regarding reproductive rights." Yup.