Vilsack who?

I read in the newspaper over the weekend that John Vilsack withdrew from the Democratic ‘08 presidential race.  This disturbed me for two reasons.  First, he sounded like an interesting and intelligent guy who just might have made a good president.  But second and most disturbing, I didn’t even know he was running.

You’ve got to realize, I am a political junkie.  I grew up in the Washington DC area.  I read the paper (yeah, I know its the Oregonian) every day and several news magazines per month, plus checking in on my Yahoo page several times a day to make sure the world hasn’t collapsed in the interim.

But I’d never heard of this guy, the former governor of Vermont.  And even though I think six or so candidates still remain in the race, I’d be hard-pressed to tell you who they are, other than Dennis Kucinich, and of course, Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.

A year before the first primary votes are cast, the media (I won’t even restrict this to the “mainstream media”) are determined to turn this into a horse race. They’ve chosen their two horses and come hell or high water, they’re not even going to let us see the rest of the pack.  Problem is, they’ve picked the wrong horses.

Hilary and Barack both have their exciting credentials of difference (woman and black).  Underneath these surface details they are remarkably alike:  centrists who speak in measured, shrewd platitudes and are experts as self-promotion and as a result, raising money.  Given the choice, I’d go with Obama, who at least didn’t vote to authorize the Iraq war (not that he was in the position to authorize it or not at the time) and has a pleasanter personality than the thoroughly repellent Hilary.  But while intelligent and well-spoken, he’s inexperienced and untested, and I fear he will collapse under the pressure of immense public scrutiny and expectations.

Which leaves us where?  My heart remains with Dennis Kucinich, who speaks the truth passionately and consistently. But he’s destined to remain a fringe candidate, precisely because he’s so blunt and sincere and passionate, plus being short, funny looking and a vegan. The sad fact is the Democrats need someone more telegenic.

Perhaps the right candidate is out there already but we the public are never going to know it as long as we are restricted to the Clinton/Obama false dichotomy.  the Presidential race is dominated by money and powerful interests, that’s an unfortunate fact.  But can’t be be granted at least the opportunity to hear what the other candidates have to say?  Can’t we at least know who they are?

I’ll stick with playmobil

Talk about idiotic.  Check out this new item featured at this year’s Toy Fair.  The Smart Cycle, put out by Fisher-Price, features a preschooler-sized exercise bicycle that plugs into a television.  Children can operate video games (starring Sponge Bob and Dora the Explorer) by pedalling.  And don’t worry, parents–the video games are all “educational”, teaching about numbers, letters, and shapes.

“The concept behind the Smart Cycle is that children learn better when they are having fun and in this case they don’t realize they are involved in a scholastic and athletic endeavor” states  a Fisher-Price spokesman.

Whoa!  There are so many things wrong with this line of reasoning.  First of all, small children, whether or not they are athletically skilled, love to move.  They crave activity.  they will pedal a tricycle, swing, climb, dance, wrestle with their siblings, and llacking any other outlet, run in circles.

Small children also love to learn. Education is not an unpleasantness that needs to be disguised, like hiding ground up spinach in a meatloaf.  I’d dismiss the Smart Cycle as yet another silly item for parents to waste their money on except that it teaches insidiously bad lessons.  It teaches that exercise is a chore, only made bearable by another distraction (the video games).  It teaches that exercise is an activity separate from normal daily life.  Far from encouraging children to play actively, it keeps them literally plugged into the television.

The video games themselves are another problem, one hared by Leapfrog electronic toys, workbooks and similar toys defined as “educational”. Small children learn best from the big, wide, concrete and sensual world.  Why shrink it down to two dimensions?  Why shrink concepts like language and shape down to a few constructs to memorize?

If parents are so concerned about their children’s physical fitness, why not just LET THEM PLAY.  Toss a ball around. Walk down to the park.  Sign them up for soccer or dance if you have to be organized.  But as far as toys go, I’d stick with Playmobil.  For that matter I’d stick with Transformers or Barbie.

hope springs eternal

I’m an optimist by nature.  I can’t help but always think that change is at hand.  After the November elections, when the Democrats took control of Congress, I was certain they would finally take action against the war in Iraq.  When, after Bush’s inane surge proposal, even Republicans started making angry noises, I figured Bush’s day of reckoning had finally arrived.

Granted, the nonbinding resolutions proposed by both parties were by definition weak.  But I figured they would constitute an embarrassing, bipartisan rebuke to the Bush Administration, and when Bush ignored the resolution (as he surely would) it would pave the way for stronger action, like actually witholding funds.

apparently even this little act of resistance was too much to hope for.  The Republicans have–for the moment–stopped all Congressional debate on Iraq.  Republicans like our Sentator Gordon Smith, who just last week were making impassioned outcries against the war, have now backpedaled.  And the Democrats, as usual, aren’t being nearly as aggressive as they need to be.  As for a Depublican like Lieberman…well, don’t make me sick.

What’s the cause for all this hesitation?  Apparently it’s fear of “not supporting the troops”.  After the unfair derision heaped on them by some (really, not many) people during the Vietnam war, our troops have become an untouchable icon.

Please.  Soldiers  are just people–no better or worse than the rest of us–people who joined the military service for many reasons, be it an idealistic desire to serve their country, a desire for a more disciplined way of life, a way of earning money for college, an outlet for excess testosterone that isn’t satisfied by video games.  Whatever.  In most of these people war has brought out the most brave and honorable elements of their character.  In others it has served to accentuate a latent sadism, leading to incidents like Haditha and Abu Gharaib.

We don’t need to elevate our military forces to sainthood, but we must respect the fact that while the rest of us go about our daily business, these folks are risking their lives.

If we truly “support” the troops, we owe it to them not to put them in harm’s way without damn good reason.  Right now soldiers are dying for a war that was started for fallacious reasons and that almost everybody admits is a mistake and a failure. They are inadequately equipped, sent for repeated tours of duty, and neglected once they return home.

The best way to “support the troops” is to bring them home.  As long as Congress continues to fund the war, and as long as us citizens allow them to do it, we are enablers of the Bush Administrations crash course towards destruction.

I’m beginning to think that most members of Congress are so tied into the status quo, that, no matter their bleatings,  they don’t want to risk rocking the boat too much, and what their constituents think is hardly as important as the desireso of their major contributors and lobbyists.

However–troops out there–there IS another alternative.  If no one is supporting you, you can support yourselves.  Why don’t you refuse to risk your lives one more day in this idiotic war?

Wars will cease when men refuse to fight.

Of course, if Congress continues to waffle and wiggle and be generally useless

Whatever motivates an individual member of the armed services, they are risking their lives when we send them to war. Currently they are risking their lives

alternamom

I’ve got to admit to a case of sour grapes here.  I’m always impressed by people whose market savvy so outweighs their insight.  Meanwhile, I’m always coming up with ideas that, looking back, could have made a million dollars or at least a splash on the cultural radar if I ever actually tried to promote them.

Today’s banal news update highlights a new book by journalist Neal Pollack about the experience of raising a child. States the Oregonian,”As an alternadad, Pollack has struggled with wanting to stay youthful himself, still plugged in to the ideals, music, and culture he loves, while also being a responsible parent.”

Wow!  And I thought parents of previous generations automatically started started listening to Lawrence Welk, voting Republican, and spending weekends at the country club immediately upon giving birth!

What on earth does your musical taste have to do with your responsibility as a parent?

I don’t know where I precisely fit in on Pollack’s generational spectrum.  He’s 35, so technically I could have been his mother, though as a (his words) “crunchy hippie” teenager, presumably an alternaparent.  I had three children in the ’80s, a time when, believe it or not, there were also cool bands.  But I also have a six year old, which means that I’m hanging out with a lot of parents who are around 35.  “Of course having a tattoo is not mandatory,” concedes Pollack, but I do have one. 

The word “alternative” has always appealed to me, just on principle.  Once in the late 80s, living in suburban Long Island (probably the height of uncoolness) I walked into a Tower Records (no independent record stores on Long Island, sorry) and spied a category called “alternative”.  Inside the rather small alternative file was a record by the Butthole Surfers.  The name was gross.  The music wasn’t that great. But the term “alternative”?  I stood by the record counter, just to bask in its light. And there I was, with three children under seven.

Pollack is all proud that he took his son to see Modest Mouse before he turned two (not Mickey Mouse! Modest Mouse!)  Whoopie-dink.  My oldest daughter saw Simon and Garfunkel in Central Park before she turned one.  My six year old, born way after my limited tolerance for Raffi had expired, has attended many a rock concert. His favorite performer is Mark Knopfler, but yes, he’s familiar with Modest Mouse and Sufjan Stevens, two musicians cited by Pollack as proof of coolness.

As for ideals, by the age of two my son had attended (sadly) so many antiwar rallies that he started walking around an airplance chanting “Not my President, Not my war”. 

The truth is, you can like any kind of music you want, wear what you want, read what you want, and all of this is a matter of personal taste and has little to do with quality parenting..  Coolness is being comfortable in your own skin, not shifting corelessly as your social roles change, and not letting cultural boxes define you.

The other truth is that no matter how many cool bands you like, by the time your little child grows up, they’ll be relegated to the oldies station.  No matter how “alternative” you think  you are, the weight of parenthood, that ultimate responsibility for another human being, will alter you irrevocably, and a lot of those song lyrics and independent movies you once thought were so deep and meaningful are going to seem trivial and naive. And no matter how cool you still believe you are at that time, your teenager/young adult will not share that view.  I guarantee it.