I could just cry. I thought- really, I did- that with McCain and Obama we could have an actual election. About choices. Between two people who were going to take a higher road than their immediate predecessors. But when things got tough McCain- in a burst of effective if heartbreaking genius- went back to the tried and true formula of distracting the electorate by putting the focus back on social issues and by some old-fashioned hypocritical mud-slinging. Has anybody else noticed that suddenly the election is about Palin v. Hillary? Has anybody else noticed that we are back to PTA / 5th grade politics- do we vote for that nice Mrs. Palin / Sarah, who always brings sweet treats and isn’t perfect, but sure who is- or do we vote for that cranky old Mrs. Clinton / Hillary, who’s a swot and always knows everything about everything, but doesn’t that get on your nerves, really? It makes me want to close the curtains and take to my bed- until Thanksgiving.

McCain’s choice was inspired- and desperate. He was something of a ‘maverick’ until he worked out that in order to get the presidential prize, he would have to make peace with the farther-right end of the party. So, he moved away from many long-held positions- on immigration, environmental, and economic issues. That squeeked him through the primary process, but did not fire up the infamous ‘base’. And this is the truly awful part of the story: the (imho cynical) whipping up of a ‘base’ that sees reproductive and faith issues as the ultimate litmus test and qualifier for a president of the US has served the Republican party very well for the last 8 years. And McCain- who was attracting crowds in the hundreds- essentially accepted / sold out to [depending on your point of view] that form of politics. The result? crowds in the thousands. A ‘base’ that is ‘energized’. But as Barbara points out (and as I did in a different post), being VP to a 74 year old president calls for a bit more than being a strong, generally cabable person. It is interesting that nobody seems to be making the ‘it’s only the VP spot, anyway, and they don’t really do much’ argument- and telling that the comparisons are between Palin and Obama (McCain is, at least for the moment, almost a footnote). Is 20 months of being a governor equal to being a senator? Is being mayor of a small town develop better skills than being a community organizer? Is being a hockey mom better than being a teacher? Whether or not Palin- or Quayle or Ferraro or any other potential VP would be up to the post matters, but so does what she stands for. Aside from the irony of the selling point of the VP being that she is a real person, just like you (the reality show show element- you could be the next VP!!), there is the question of the message the choice sends. Where before I could see myself voting for McCain on economic issues, and especially foreign affairs (and international relationships, an area in which I think most American seriously underestimate how much work needs to be done) now I have to consider what happens if we get VP Palin - or President Palin, (this time or next). And this is the point Barbara makes so well (above): could I vote for somebody whose politics are so dramatically different than mine? well, no. Economically she may not be frivolous, but she is a big believer in bringing home the bacon. Socially she believes in using government to legislate people’s personal lives. Anecdotally she appears to believe rules are (to borrow a phrase) ‘for the little people’. Educationally, she believes in ‘letting the children decide’ whether the creationists or the evolutionary biologists are better scientists. Does that mean that she should be treated badly? no, but nobody should be. In Europe, Palin would still be on maternity leave, and in the US there is still an open debate about things like maternity leave and childcare. To have a conversation about the pros and cons of going into what is obviously a more-than-full time job when you have an infant is not necessarily anti-feminist. Why do we think that there will ever be an easy answer to that question? My understanding of feminism was removing artificial limits, not trying to pretend that there is no difference between being a woman and being a man. In some ways, the way Palin is being marketed like that old Virginia Slims ad: she can bring home the bacon (career woman), fry it up in a pan (hockey mom), and never ever forget you are a man (women shouldn’t whine). Is this really progress?! (and Star, I’m with you on the tone thing- a place for thoughtful postings is what brought me to WoW in the first place- let’s show that it can be done!)

Thanks for the link, Maurine. It shows a woman in her own environment. I don’t think that is any reason why she can’t go beyond it (though her world view would be just a bit different than mine), but as the video is only a few months old it is a good look at the ‘before’. It is like a reality show: here we take your basic provincial leader and - hey presto! - make her ready for prime time. The Jon Stewart link (below) offers another look at Sarah Palin at a public event.

Great. The world is so kafka-esque that real life is imitating reality television. Now, anybody can be Vice-President! The Flying Fickle Finger of Fate can suddenly point at YOU. Sarah Palin, come on down! Sarah Palin is clearly a capable person- but so are *lots* of other people (men and women) in this country. And yes, she gave a humdinger of a speech. But there is nothing in her background to suggest that she is ready to be President of the US - and however unlikely it is, that is really the only test for a VP: could they manage the top job if they got it? It is a trifecta for the Republican party- somebody so conservative that the base is swooning with delight, a woman, so people can’t be too nasty without being accused of sexism (and some of the comments have been sexist), and best of all- she can deliver a speech. When the dust settles, however, one of these pairings is going to be in charge of the country.

Deni G’s point is well taken: It would have at least bordered on interesting and intelligent if you had mused that perhaps the media outlets had actually decided to report news and verify accuracy and truth, before they spend the whole week on stuff that matters not a whit to our lives. And, I would add, not putting the story of an allegation of (not illegal) behaviour on the front page is not exactly the same thing as keeping something secret. In the meantime, I would be interested to know how the WoW staff define ‘mainstream media’. As far as a I know the phrase was promoted by Fox, to differentiate itself as the plucky little David against the Giant networks (CBS, NBC, ABC), and members of conservative groups which worry about a vast liberal conspiracy in the media. To them, the phrase is intended as a put-down. In the present context, it appears that the WoW staffers are equating the MSM as, hmmm, the terrestrially-based media (newspapers, television), and the non-MSM as the blogosphere? Frankly, I wouldn’t want to share my life with a politician, as the characteristics that are necessary to be good at politics tend to have downsides for private life. But we ‘hire’ politicians to do a job. I don’t screen my GP’s marital history. I choose my GP because s/he is good at being a GP. Sure, we would love for all the important people in our lives to lead admirable lives- but that’s not going to happen. Which is just as well, because we we aren’t always admirable either.

Thanks, Bonnie! Irish is one of three gaelic languages (Scottish & Manx are the other two).

The key word is ‘mandatory’. In Ireland, Irish is required from age 4 on (unless you arrive in the country after age 12). The government pays for every school- public and private- to provide a required minimum of 30 minutes of Irish class per day. There are government subsidized Irish language radio and television stations. Students are required to take Irish on their Leaving Certificate exams- used for college admissions- at the end of 12th grade. There is a whole culture of Irish camps in the summers to help the children develop the language by living in Irish only environments for 3 weeks (ask an Irish adult where they had their first kiss- for many, it’s in the gaeltacht [Irish speaking region]). Add in national pride in one’s own cultural heritage, and surely everybody is fluent in their native tongue, right? Wrong. For a variety of reasons (rehashed regularly in the media), only a small percentage of Irish people actually can speak more than the “cupla focail” (few words). In the last few years there has been an increase in schools in which all the teaching is in Irish, and Irish names for children are back in fashion, but in both primary and secondary schools (and I have children in both) most kids dread it. It is poorly taught and not part of their daily lives. My secondary school child takes Irish (required), a European language (required), and Latin. She finds the Latin the easiest and the most fun. Her Spanish teacher is Irish (not a native speaker) and is such a poor teacher that after a year in his class her Spanish was worse than it was at the beginning. Here is a blog page from somebody who is disgusted that Irish isn’t the dominant language in Ireland: http://www.finfacts.ie/finfactsblog/2006/12/cpla-focail-and-more-hypocri… Anyway, the point is that it’s all very well to say that it would be better if all American children were multilingual like the Belgians. But the example of Ireland suggests that imposing it from the top is unlikely to work. Ireland is a small, relatively homogenous country, that has shoveled billions into trying to revive their *own* language- with a stunning lack of success. It is hard to imagine that the kaleidscopic mosaic of America is going to buy into being forced to be bilingual English-Spanish.

Well said, Marjorie. Having lived in a number of countries, and been frequently hit with “you Americans think you are so great- what about [insert episode]? I have learned to say ‘when you reach high, you don’t always get there the first time (or the second or the third…)- but you get farther than you would if you didn’t try’. We are a collection of people with some truly great aspirations, and when we let ourselves down (and we can all list times when we have), we dust ourselves off, get up and try again. It makes me proud that we try, and prouder when the system works.

Ditto. Normally, if I don’t have something compelling to add, I don’t post, but apparently post counts amount to votes for topics —- and contributors - and I want to make sure that the good ones get counted, not just the ‘controversial’ ones. Happy 4th of July!

Good suggestion Carol- I would be most interested in hearing the thought process as well. There are clearly two parts to it: who was asked to participate, and the decision to headline Coulter’s (rather benign) response. What makes me sad is the reaction on all sides. Look how quickly the conversation turned ugly. We have become so habituated to vitriolic conversation that it takes very little to reduce even this group to reflexive posturing. Given that Coulter’s main role in public has been that of ‘pot-stirrer’, I wonder why she was highlighted on the site. Is it naive to be shocked at I Love Money’s suggestion that the link is through Joni Evans and Random House? or is it more naive to even take that suggestion seriously? Was it mischievous, to see how the zeitgeist of the WoW community would react? Whatever it was, giving a banner headline to Coulter was certainly not “random” ;-)

Ann Coulter is a friend of WoW?! I have been off-line for about 10 days- has something major happened to the site that I missed?! I thought WoW was a place for thoughtful discussions, an alternative to the polemics that pollute so much of public discourse. So, does this mean that Ann Coulter has a more nuanced and reasoning side than has typically been presented for public consumption? Or has there been a tectonic shift at WoW?

…and while we’re off-topic, does anybody else play mexican wave with the heads at the top of the page while waiting for a page to load?!

Yup, and I like the new Tiffany watch too!

So, actually, you don’t mean ‘don’t get married’- you mean ‘turn off the marriage machine’. Reverse the brain-washing process, strip the whole thing back to the absolute basics (2 people and an officiator), and then thoughtfully add back in the elements that matter to you (perhaps applying that accessories rule of taking off 2 as soon as you think you are at the right level). Recast it in terms of what the point of the wedding is about. In the nicest weddings that I have been to there always seems to come a moment in the ceremony in which the sense of it being an ‘event’ stops and there is a stillness, when everybody gathered together is ‘in the moment’, which becomes a shared moment. And after that, all the rest is just a gathering of people who have shared a lovely moment and are happy to be together.

1. Everybody tends to rate the value of their own contribution more than the contributions of others, so in order to do your share, you have to do *more* than what *feels* like your share. 2. When choosing your career path: find something you like to do, then find a way to get paid for doing it. 3. Money only solves money problems. Corollary: Most of the really hard problems in life can’t be solved with money. 4. Always thank the effort that somebody has made on your behalf (most frequently heard in the context of unwelcome gifts or meals with unpopular dishes).