My Morning

I got in line around 7:15 this morning. Not too long but as long a line as I've ever had to wait on to vote (I always go in the morning, before work.)
The line was moving quickly. Even better, none of the people there were in my district so while they waited on second lines for their voting booths I just waited for one of the poll workers to fill out a card for me, signed the book, and got right to voting. I'm glad we have these old, easy to use, completely non-electronic machines. My sister and I were talking yesterday about how there's something satisfying about using these machines where you have to move the lever and flip all the little tabs, much more so than there would be if we were just filling in bubbles for an optical scan or tapping a screen for one of those horrible, insecure electronic voting machines.

A straight democratic ticket:

All told, I was out of there by 7:30. The line had doubled by then, but was still much, much shorter than the lines people all over the country will be waiting on today. Fortunate for us.


No matter where you live or who you vote for, just be sure to vote if you haven't already. (Unless, of course, like a certain father of mine, you've never been registered in which case you should be ashamed.)

And now I'm just going to go back to stressing out until this thing is over.

Things I think about . . .

In a New York Times op-ed, Charles Blow writes:

Of course, anything could happen. There are three days left. McCain could still win. And, a drunk man wearing a blindfold could get a puck past Marc-André Fleury.

Yeah, unlikely. It’s a wrap. Fade to black.

How the hell did he come to choose Fleury? Why not Brodeur or Lundqvist who are a) better and b) local? Or at least why not one of the top goalies in the league (hint: Fleury's not one of them)? Should we take from this that the likelihood of McCain winning is greater than the likelihood of a drunk man wearing a blindfold getting a puck past Brodeur, equal to a drunk man in a blindfold getting a puck past Fleury, and less than a drunk man in a blindfold getting a puck past Niittymaki?

Yeah, I'm ready for this election to be over.

John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Children with Special Needs

I don't know if I've mentioned it here before, but my younger brother, who is 18, has Down Syndrome. While I wouldn't say that a candidate's views on people with disabilities are one of my primary concerns, I do pay attention to them and they do matter to me. Talking about Palin in the debate tonight, McCain said:

And by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we got to find out what's causing it and we've got to reach out to these families and help them and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.

She understands that better than almost any American that I know.

I'm sure this mention is supposed to appeal to people like me while simultaneously, and more importantly, helping the Republican ticket look particularly compassionate to the general electorate. Taking care of the disabled is one of those things we're supposed to feel all virtuous about, right? But I can't help but resent the way they trot her baby out for political gain.

I also hate how McCain, and certain Palin believers, act like she's some sort of poster mom for mothers of children with disabilities. Sarah Palin is one of many mothers in the US who have a child with a disability. 1 out of every 800-1000 children born in the US has Down Syndrome. 5000 a year. I believe that overall about 350,000 families throughout the country include someone with Down Syndrome. And that doesn't even take into account the great many families that include a person with a different disability. Does she understand better than all those many family members?

Also, her son is what, 6 months old? The big challenges and struggles come later than that, and Sarah Palin hasn't experienced them yet. Nor does she have a background of working with and for children with special needs. Eventually she'll really "understand special-needs families." But now? In part, sure. But on the whole I'm skeptical. That's not an attack on her. How could she really? There are so very many people in America who I am sure understand better than she does. And if she really understands, "better than almost any American that [McCain] know[s]," than that's an indication of his ignorance not her expertise.

Beyond that, I talked to my mother tonight and her biggest complaint was that McCain when talked about Sarah Palin's devotion to children with special needs he didn't even mention Down Syndrome but instead talked about autism. They're, well, just not the same. I would assume Palin knows that. If, that is, she knows anything about autism. But it seems like McCain doesn't really. My mother thought it made him look ignorant when it comes to people with disabilities. I don't disagree.

When Obama responded to McCain's mention of special needs, he said,

I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding if we're going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talks about. And if we have a across-the-board spending freeze, we're not going to be able to do it. That's an example of, I think, the kind of--the use of the scalpel that we want to make sure that we're funding some of those programs.

And he's right. Research costs money. So, too, does special education, for which Sarah Palin cut funding as a governor. I think that's probably a decision she'll come to regret as her own child through school and she sees where all that money goes. In his eighteen years of life my brother has had physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists. He's had personal aides and been a part of small classrooms. He's gone to special schools. That kind of stuff isn't cheap, and thankfully it is government funded. But parents have to fight for it. They have to know their rights and go in and advocate for their children or get someone else to do it for them. My mother worked as a volunteer parent advocate. Getting these kids into the right educational situation isn't easy.

But how did McCain respond?

But again, I want to come back to--you know, notice, every time, Senator Obama says, "We need to spend more. We need to spend more. That's the answer." Why do we always have to spend more? Why can't we have transparency, accountability, reform of these agencies of government?

Obama was talking about funding for families with special needs and McCain comes back with the need for transparency, accountability, and reform of government agencies as good alternatives to increased funding? Does he even understand the problem? It's not a lack of transparency and accountability. The exchange didn't exactly fill me with confidence. Let me be clear. I don't think Barack Obama is going to come into office and suddenly improve the situation of people with disabilities throughout the country. I find his general embrace of science to be comforting, but I realize that special education and services for people with special needs are probably nowhere near a priority for him. I wouldn't expect them to be. But he's not the one trotting out his running mate's understanding of "special-needs families"--a phrase I detest, by the way--for political gain. And I don't think a McCain-Palin administration would be helpful either. Actually, given McCain's advocacy for a spending freeze and cuts, cuts, cuts, it could be genuinely harmful.

For today and only today . . .

I'm kind of loving Flyers fans.



I'm also getting a kick out of them trying to drown out the sound of the booing, which the New York Times hockey blog described as "resounding (almost deafening)," by playing the music extra loudly. Honestly, who thought this was a good idea?

Well on the bright side...

I think my socially liberal, economically conservative, never-voting father will officially stop his attempt--mostly in jest--to convince me that the Republicans deserve any consideration at all. 

Truth & Reconciliation: A National Reckoning

The second event I went to on the Sunday before last was a panel on truth and reconciliation in countries that have seen great violence, repression, civil war, etc. The panelists here were Rian Malan, of South Africa; Alexandra Fuller, who wrote Don't Let's Go to the Dogs Tonight; Francisco Goldman, who has written about the murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi in Guatemala; and Lieve Joris, who has written about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The moderator was Paul van Zyl.

Instead of asking general questions van Zyl asked the individual panelists specific questions, which resulted in interesting answers but not much discussion. He started out by asking Goldman why it is important that nations grapple with a past of abuse and whether or not there is a case for forgetting? Goldman explained that in Guatemala the military imposed blanket amnesty. They then allowed a UN truth commission that was only allowed to speak generally, not lay specific blame. The government was a "democratic institution" based on forgetting. So the church formed its own truth commission, spearheaded by the bishop, and two days after it gave its report he was murdered. Van Zyl then asked if he thought the commission served Guatemala well and Goldman said that he thought it had been both essential and indispensable. He said that having to keep silent about that kind of trauma was a form of violence.

Van Zyl then asked Malan how he thought South Africa is progressing with dealing with the past. Malan said that he had been convinced that the South African drama would end in race war. After apartheid ended the next 18 months were a sort of honeymoon for South Africa and he feels that the truth commission succeeded primarily in opening old wounds. He also stated that he felt that the truth hadn't been obscured in South Africa as it had been in other countries. He then said that a truth commission needs to be impartial and theirs wasn't. He elaborated on this a bit after being asked if there was a case for reconciliation, saying that their truth commission wanted to refocus what happened in the soft focus of human rights and this was too simplistic. As an example he noted that all but one member of the ANC was secretly a member of the communist party. By way of conclusion he said that he felt alienated by the truth commission.

I don't think I quite caught the question for Fuller correctly but it had something to do with the complexity in Zimbabwe and also both Mugabe and the previous white regime. Fuller said that she once led people to leave a reading of hers in Colorado by comparing Mugabe to Bush. She then said that any peace birthed out of violence will eventually spawn violence. She said that Mugabe can be effective because there was no truth after the war there. It allowed him to jump on the abuse and push the right buttons. There was no reparation so there could be no reconciliation. Van Zyl then asked about complicity and Fuller said that the Rhodesians are not a good example of how to run a war, but they are a good warning. She compared their rhetoric to Bush's. Who takes responsibility? No one.

Continuing on the issue of complicity, van Zyl asked Joris about the role of Belgium and France in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She said that there is also a role for the United States, and soon for China as well. The people on top are helped from the outside so there is no opportunity for opposition from below. The pacification groups are a business. Where there is a void--no laws, no human rights, no economy--it allows people to do and become horrible things. Van Zyl then asked how you deal with child soldiers. Joris said that they are sometimes given into war by their families in return for money at a later date. Again it is an economic void that allows this to happen. It is important that there are witnesses on the ground. She then talked a bit about trying war criminals and said that sometimes when she is looking at these people she thinks, "haven't they suffered enough?" It is a situation in which there are not good guys and bad guys like we would want.

Van Zyl asked Goldman about the role of the US in Guatemala, pointing out that the truth commission there said that the genocide there could not have happened without the support of the United States. Goldman explained that at the time the United States was formulating the policy of waging proxy wars against communism. In the 60s they created a world of clandestine power. At the same time, progressive people in the state department began a program in Guatemala where they would handpick bright young people for scholarships to US universities. These people then returned to Guatemala and began influencing things. But, "reform is the door through which communists enter," so by the 70s, seventy percent of these young people had been murdered by the other branch of the US government active in Guatemala--the clandestine one of military power. He also said that the political criminals now own the drug cartels and organized crime.

Van Zyl then backtracked to address the idea that the South African truth commission, which he was a part of, was biased. He said that in the 48 hours before the report was made it was the ANC that tried to stop the South African truth commission. Thus he is hard pressed to concede the issue that the truth commission was biased toward the ANC. (I personally have no opinion on the bias or lack thereof of the truth commission since I know almost nothing about it, but I do, for the record, think that's a pretty weak argument.) He acknowledged that the commission had the responsibility to look at all sides but also said that in the end someone is more culpable, even if crimes are committed on both sides. Malan said that 72 people died in the dungeons of South Africa and while that is certainly too many it's not the equivalent of Pol Pot and that he would like precision in the crimes he is accused of. I think I was missing something (a lot) in this exchange, partially because I don't know a great deal about South Africa and partially because I don't know anything about Malan, never having heard of him before attending this panel.

That topic was then dropped and van Zyl asked Fuller about a book of hers in which she tells the story of an Evangelical Christian soldier. Fuller said that it actually makes sense because who is righter than God? She noted that it is so hard to argue with someone who has a highly literal belief in God.

The floor was then opened to questions from the audience of which there were a few. The first was about the responsibility of writers to transmit truth to a broad audience. Joris said that she wanted to give back to the Congolese a part of their history that they don't know. Malan said that he is just a journalist and a storyteller. Fuller talked about The House of Hunger by Dambudzo Marechera and said that they should have paid more attention to his howl (which seems to be more about the responsibility of readers to listen to truth than the responsibility of writers to transmit it). Goldman said that people don't realize how difficult it is to create justice.

Another woman asked a rather long-winded question about what would happen to people today returning to their countries after being educated about democracy in the United States. Van Zyl mentioned that the US is probably not the best place to learn about democracy these days. Malan said that South Africans would probably just want to say in the US and also that since the Bush presidency began he has no longer been able to defend the US as he once did. Joris said that this has happened in the Congo and the educated people come back and get involved in the very worst things; education is no guarantee of good behavior.

Someone then asked Fuller if interpersonal reconciliation is possible without economic reconciliation. She said that for real reconciliation you can't be sitting there aching for something someone else has. The final question was also for her and asked about Britain's failure in Rhodesia. She said that Britain refused to be involved in the corruption. A grand idea doesn't do any good if the people in power are so corrupt that the idea rots in their hands.

Forbidden Planet

My day at work was Crappy--yes, so much so that it deserves capitalization--and thoroughly frustrating, so when I got home instead of doing the multitudinous things that need doing around the apartment I sat around in the living room eating Americone Dream and watching Forbidden Planet with Wendy. Part of my '50s sci fi education (next up is Them!). Today sucked. But Forbidden Planet is pretty awesome.

On a total side note, the highlight of my crappy day--setting aside deliciously bad special effects--was watching Obama's S. Carolina speech. Either that man's quite the writer or his speechwriter deserves a very nice raise. Or both.

Olbermann

This was linked to on a forum I frequent. I'm not always sure what I think of Olbermann. I love a smartly constructed rant, but he doesn't do it for me all the time. And lets face it, they're hardly going to change the world. But there are some times that he hits it out of the park.



Will he get what he wants? No, of course not. But sometimes it's good to see someone say it so eloquently anyway.