Taking the high road

I usually let political posts on Facebook go. Facebook is not a good forum for reasoned discussion. But after the election last week, someone posted a collage of former first ladies and our prospective new one titled from “class to trash”. All of the women were wearing the basic, political wife, twin set and pearls drag; except Melania, who was nude.  I couldn’t help myself. I said in the comments that it was uncalled for. She had been a model before marrying the Donald, and most models have done nudes at some point, including the former First Lady of France, Carla Bruni.

And I took heat for it, and all along the same theme: If Michelle Obama had nude pics floating around, the right would have given her holy hell and nobody would have defended her. Look at the fuss they raised over her wearing a sleeveless dress to the State of the Union.

• This is not the point, but: There was some defense of Michelle Obama. Many people pointed out that Jackie Kennedy had worn a sleeveless dress to the State of the Union.
• This is the point: Just because some yahoos treated Michelle badly (and they did) that does not give you the right to treat Melania badly.  As the lady herself said “When they go low, we go high.”

Let me clarify that I am no fan of Mr. Trump.  I am seriously troubled by the election results.  I know very little about Melania,  but I feel anger is better directed at Donald Trump and his advisors, not his wife.

And I’m not saying that we should give her (plagiarized) convention speech a free pass.  But calling her a skank and posting old photos doesn’t address that.  It’s just being crude.

I know being the bigger person is not fun.  Taking the high road is a thankless task.  You get no laughs, no-one 'likes' your Facebook posts for not insulting people. There are few memorable one liners; it's both frustrating and boring.

“A soft answer turneth away wrath . . . but a smart aleck one is more personally satisfying.”  - Bloom County

But if we truly want to mend our nation’s social fabric and raise the level of discourse, perhaps we should stop trying to score points off of one another and actually discuss the problems facing us.  If we remain civil, the other side might talk to us.  If we listen to them, they might listen to us.  We might even be able to get something done.

It's over!



 I looked for one of Romney, but he doesn't seem to inspire knitters - and this was too good not to share.



If you are like me, your reaction to the presidential election was one of relief - not so much about who won, but that I don't have to hear campaign news anymore. Listening to the press go on and on the significance (or insignificance) of a 1% dip in the polls was driving me crazy.

My recycling bin is full of election mailers. I hung up on at least one automated phone message a week, and the emails! Thank goodness for spam filters. And I don't live in a swing state - it must be absolutely brutal for the people in Ohio.

Could we shorten it? Pass a rule saying that they are only allowed to campaign for say, 6 months before election day - 6 months is an ample amount of time. They can do all the fundraising, coming up with the platform, candidate selection, etc. beforehand, but they are only allowed to importune the public for 6 months. Anyone who can't make up their mind in 6 months, isn't going to.

And while we're at it, the press would only be allowed to come on the air and speculate (i.e. say "I don't know" at length) for 1 hour a day.  It would be called "Opinion Hour" and be scheduled for the same time, every day. That way the press could stop trying to fill air time with guesswork, and concentrate on something of substance. They might even notice that there are countries out there that aren't the US and give them some real coverage.

Okay. Rant over. I feel better now.

Friday Feel Good Video
A classic.

My only election post

A friend of mine posted on Facebook recently:

"If Romney wins the election, I am moving out of the country."

My reaction to that was:

1. that's an over-reaction
2. how incredibly selfish

I was in the minority opinion, judging by the amount of support she got in the comments. But let me explain what I mean by selfish.

Think of the government as doubles tennis. If you leave when you lose a game, you are not just exhibiting poor sportsmanship, you are ceding the title to the other side and leaving your partner in the lurch. It's a selfish reaction, because you are not doing your part to keep the game going.

Leaving the country is not an effective response. It's a pouty and privileged one, since most people can't leave the country when their side loses. "But you can vote from overseas." I hear you say. Yes, you can, but you can't change the dialogue, you can't talk with or influence other voters. If you were voting for the school board in California, would you take seriously the opinion of someone who is living in Germany?

I was impressed by the Tea Party. (Please note I did not say agree.) The Republicans were soundly beaten in 2008. These people got mad, they got organized, and they took Congress in 2010. That's an effective response. 

Democracy is not about everyone agreeing, it's about everyone being engaged and fighting for what they believe in. It's messy, loud, and uncivil, but it gives everyone a say. Leaving is giving up your turn at the microphone.

Current Events

All I can think of right now is the protests going on in the Muslim world.  I'm wondering how much of it is really about Islam. Can people really get this upset about a badly-made film, produced on the other side of the world, that almost nobody has seen? The protesters have publicized the film far more than the makers managed to do.  Or is it really an excuse to yell at Americans?

If it really is about blasphemy, wouldn't it only really matter if the people making the film were Muslim? But since the people making this film are infidels who by definition are going to hell anyway, what does it matter? Doesn't Allah have the muscle to stand up to a few idiots and a bad movie?

It's like being upset that somewhere, someone is not thinking the way you do. And that's a given, even among the faithful, since everyone hears a message in their own way. The only way to be certain there are no dissenting opinions is be the only person on the planet. And that would be pointless.

If it's an excuse to yell at Americans, it's an unfortunate choice, because attacking embassies and killing ambasadors over a movie makes them look unbalanced. I'm not saying there aren't reasons to protest American involvment, there are, but this is a lame one.

Anyway, sitting here typing isn't going to solve anything. Back to our regularly scheduled happy fluff next week.