Notes, Notings, and Common Refrains

1. Back in 1971, Bud Lucky wrote a series of number songs for Seseme Street, including "Ten Turtles," which is built around the device of placing a phone order to your grocery store to have produce delivered (boy-- I long for this even more than a housecall from a doc!) And for the past week or so, it's been running through my head.
   
   ( Lyrics )
   
   
   And along with the tune getting stuck in my head, I've been puzzling out an acutual menu for a Vegetarian Harvest feast buffet that would use all of these ingrediants. I'd skip the quanities in the song, because, really: ten whole brussels sprouts are not an equal balance to ten whole rutabegas. Plus, I'd add extra things, like spices and flavoring, maybe rice, and/or other grain. But this veggie order would be the foundation.
   
   ( My speculative menu )
   
   
   
2. It's Season 41 on Sesame Street, now, and they've brought back Super Grover (updated: He's now Super Grover: 2.0). This new version is dedicated to fulfilling new standards in science and math subjects, which is the focus for this season (the season just past was dedicated to health and the environment). I love Super Grover-- old, and new versions.
   
   The other night, I looked up an old skit I remembered, where Super Grover "Helps" a girl in distress whose computer isn't working. Grover admits that he knows nothing of computers -- in fact doesn't even know what a computer is, but suggests that he tries hopping up and down while yelling "Wubba, wubba!" While he's doing that the girl notices that she simply forgot to turn the computer on. Then, she calls Grover over to show her that the computer's fine, now. And Grover takes credit for saving the day.
   
   The majority of comments on that particular clip (if you are squeamish, don't prod the beach rubble), focus on how stupid and arrogant Grover is for falsely claiming credit. But as usual, they miss the point. This old version of SG was also educating viewers on a couple of basic science and technology points: a) computers are not magic, or alive, and you have to turn them on, and b) beware of the Proximity = Causality logic fallacy.
   
   Super Grover was so focused on hopping around the room yelling "Wubba!" that he didn't even know that the girl found the on/off switch. All he knew was that the very next thing that happened was that the girl announced the result, and so, of course he took credit. I think all television reporters on the science and tech beat should be forced to watch this clip, and be tutored on its subtext (That said, I'm still tempted to yell "Wubba, Wubba!" when my computer and periferals suddenly stop playing nice).
   
   And if I'm not mistaken, it's the origin of the chorus in Monster in the Mirror song)
   
   
3. Speaking of logical fallacies: I note that, although Democratic politicians took a major whopping on Tuesday, the so-called "extreme Left" congressmen all kept their seats. It was all the "moderates" who got voted out and replaced by uber fiscal and social Right-leaning Republicans.
   I fear that pundits and statesmen alike will take this to mean that the country, agrees with the fiscal and social Right.
   
   But I take exact opposite message away: the "Moderates" got voted out because they chickened out, and failed to do the big things that need to get done. So the people who voted them in two years ago just couldn't stomach voting for them again. And that's what provided the opening for the Deficit and Social Agenda Hawks to move in.
   
   A fable-like moral to this list item: Sparrows and Doves can keep the Hawks away from their nestlings, but only if they act together, and have the courage to go after them.
   
   
4. Also on November 2, Laura Miller of Salon.com posted an essay shredding the whole concept of NaNoWrimo" Better yet, DON'T write that novel! (Thanks to trouble for the link). I didn't give it more than a cursory read, because my Internal Editor does a perfectly fine job telling me I'm a doody head, all on its own. But her basic argument seems to boil down to: "If you spend your time writing, you're a waste of space. But if you spend your time reading, you're bettering yourself and society." I bet, if you asked her where apples come from, she'd say: "The Store." *smirk*
   
   She also seems to assume that every single person who writes for NaNo actually intends to submit it somewhere for publication, so they can be Rich-and-Famous[tm]. As if that is the only reason, ever, to write anything. Her bio-blurb attatched to the article makes a big point of how she is a famous and powerful writer... I wonder if she even remembers the fun of organizing a writers group, and swapping stories, and maybe trying her hand at a round-robin. Or if she, herself, has ever done any of that.
   
   
5. So, the New Sherlock, by Moffat and Gatiss. What commentary I've seen on it focuses mostly on how they've modernized it by sticking it in the 21st C., and giving Sherlock a shiny new SmartPhone. But, I see a more subtle modernization in their storytelling (I may, however, be alone in seeing this, I don't know).
   
   In the original stories by Doyle, Dr. Watson is the narrator, but he more or less keeps himself out of the stories: he's playing the role of the ethical news reporter.
   
   But in this particular television remake, thanks to subjective qualities of camera angles and lighting, Moffat and Gatiss have made these John Watson's stories. As is the default assumption in our modern fiction, the view-point character is the protagonist more than simply the narrator. In this remake, it seems to me, Sherlock is the catalyst for change that propels John's life into a whole new arc. How John rises to the challenge that Sherlock poses is what makes him the hero. The mystery genre provides the medium for this story, but the who-dunnit aspect is not the main point.
   
   ...Anyway, yes. Well done, that. Or at least, interestingly done. Don't know if it's better storytelling, but it is fresh.

PS: I wubba you!

[Begin Quote]

"Anyone that reads intelligently knows that some of our old ideas are up a tree, and that traditions are scurrying away before the advance of their everlasting enemy, the questioning mind of a new age."

[End Quote]

Helen Keller -- Why Men need Woman Suffrage The New York Call: October 17th, 1913

Sadly, her prediction that there would be less war and more socialism if women got the vote hasn't held up as strongly as one would have hoped. I think that's because she's falling into the assumption of confusing "innate nature" with "Culturally accquired nature."

Give women the vote and you change society. But change the society, and the women change, too.

I imagine that we are more peaceful and egalitarian, on the whole, than we would have been if women never had won the right to the vote and to education (And worldwide statistics tend to bear this out: societies with a high level of gender equality are more prosperous and peaceful than those without). But we're hardly living in the peaceful, socialist utopia she was envisioning.

Still, the Grown-Up Helen sure could bring the snark. And I want to see her in fic outside the Miracle-Worker trope. Maybe something with the Doctor (I think it's the image of the Questioning Mind as advancing enemy that brings the Doctor Who Ethic to mind -- somehow, I can see her waving Seven's Question-Mark brolly around with glee)

Well, I'm sort of blogging. Mostly, I'm just providing a link:

Here is a video address from Marlee Matlin and the International Labor Organization, made on the International Day for People with Disabilities (December 3, 2007); it's in Pidgin Signed English, with English subtitles (I think there are also titles available in Spanish and French), and voiced over in English.

For some reason, all embedded media has vanished from my journals. I can still watch them on YouTube, but not here (or in LJ). There's also nothing for me to click either. All I see is a blank space where a vid would have been. So here's a link, instead: Decent work for people with disabilities.

For those of you who can't watch vids, here are the bits that stood out for me:

• One in ten people have a disability, world-wide



• That's six hundred and fifty million, total
  
  
• And four hundred and seventy million of working age.



• That it's not just important to offer jobs to the disabled, but also to offer jobs suited to their abilities and interests
  
  
  • You know the only job that my New York State "rehabilition" social worker told me was available, that she was willing to recommend me for?
  
  
  
  • (after I graduated with a 3.79 GPA in Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Communications)?
  
  
  
  • Packing raw eggs into cartons on an assembly line.
    
    
  • Oh, yeah. That's a perfect job for someone with poor balance, poor muscular timing, and spasticity in her hands.
  
  
  
  • And the salary wasn't even enough to cover the costs of wheelchair-accessible transportaion to get to the job.
  
  
  
• That, in the face of this discrimination and lack of dignity and choice, many people with disabilities just drop out of the workforce.

Link to the blurb off the Associated Press wire, today:

The legislation broadens federal reach to protect those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or a disability. Current law is limited to crimes motivated by race, ethnicity or religion.

(emphesis mine -- I added it to counter the meme that the worst that the disabled face out there in the Big Bad World is patronizing pity.)

Here's a link to a longer article from DisabilityScoop:

Disability One Step Closer To Getting Hate Crimes Protections by Michelle Daiment

And I just love (irony airquotes FTW!) this quote from Senator John McCain (you know, the other guy running for president, last year):

(Quote)
Victims are traumatized enough from a crime to then be subjected to questions about their ‘race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability’ in order to pursue a crime
(Unquote)

Um...

Are you implying, Senator, that my disability is something I should be ashamed of? Or do you think I'll be traumatized talking about the fact that I'm a woman?

He, and others who oppose Hate Crimes laws on principle, argue that beating someone up or killing them is already against the law, so why give "Special protection" to people in certain minorities? Doesn't that run counter to the whole notion of "equal protection under the law?"

But hate crimes are different -- both in their intent and their effect. A hate crime, by its very definition, uses a single individual as a proxy for an entire group (or perceived group of people). If it's reported on the news that a transgendered person was found murdered, or if a disabled person, for example, and there were indications that the only motive for the crime was some aspect of this person's identity, than all the other people who share that identity will likely become fearful, and curtail their own liberty, not going out in public, and staying "Out of harm's way." That's why these crimes are committed. The physical act of the crime is against one person, but the act of terrorism is against thousands.

So, no, it's not the same as a murder committed by a jealous lover, or a thief. If I hear about such a crime on the news, I do not become afraid.


Oh, and I do like that this legislation seems to recognized that gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation are all separate catagories.

2008 is leaving a sour taste in my memory, and the memory of many of my friends.

But nothing is unadulterated badness, and so I'm taking this time and space to remember the things that I read in 2008 that made my life a little nicer and gentler and better than it would have been if I'd never encountered them:

(out of order, chronologically)

1. Jane Austen's final novel, Persuasion.



2. The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznik.



3. The transcript of Barack Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union"



4. "A Performance of Henry V at Stratford-Upon-Avon" by Elizabeth Jennings (thank you, angevin2).



5. "With True Love and Brotherhood," by lizbee (A post-"The Next Doctor" fanfic); with writing like this on my f'list, I don't need to follow the "Official" Who.



6. Solstice Wood by Patricia McKillip.



7. Jane Austen's first novel: Northanger Abby (I'd actually read it before, for a college class. But that was so long ago, and this was my first "mature" reading of it, without it being an assignment, so it might as well have been a first reading.

...And I realized, I think it was sometime last night, what has been keeping me bouyed up so long:

We now have an openly intellectual president leading this country.

American popular culture (and perhaps popular culture around the globe, but this American one is the only one I can speak of with any authority) has long been staunchly, even violently, anti-intellectual --which I've talked about here and here (these posts also include discussions of Doctor Who and other skiffy TV).

I'm old enough to remember the Nixon presidency as a heavy cloud hanging over the nation (and was upset that the Watergate hearings were preepting my after-school block of cartoon shows on every channel). And I remember how relieved my parents were the day he left office.

I remember Ford (vaguely) as a character that was spoofed on Saturday Night Live.

Carter was the first president I actually remember in a political way-- following what he said on the news, and what grownups around me said about him at cocktail parties. He was generally acknowledged as a thoughtful and intelligent man, but the underpinnings of his philosophy is his Baptist faith, rather than logic and science, and his thoughtfulness was also seen as a softness and a weakness by his critics, especially after the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

At the time, Reagan was famously mocked (among liberals) for his lack of intelligence, and there was some speculation that he was already suffering from alzheimer's before the end of his second term.

Bush 41 wasn't quite as bad as his son, in this regard, but he certainly didn't make any effort to come across as the brightest bulb in the room.

Politically, Clinton and Bush 43 were very different in their policy positions, but they were similiar in their thinking-with-the-gut (and other bodily organs) approach to problem solving, and the way they engaged with the citizenry through pure emotional appeal ("I feel your pain" and "I will protect you from the shadowy monster in the corner").

Both Al Gore's and John Kerry's intellects were used against them in their campaigns, as setting them apart from "the rest of us," and it worked.

So is it any wonder that, in the back of my mind, there's been this idea that being openly intellectual is just about as politically risky as being openly gay?

---

My dad used to say that when you're depressed, you should just take a step back, and appreciate the pleasure that comes from breathing: "Remember how horrible it feels, when you're in the pool, horsing around, or playing 'Bobbing for Apples' and some bully comes along and holds your face underwater. Then realize that there is no bully, and you are free to breathe the sweet, good air."

Well, I realized last night that until Tuesday's election results were finally official, I've felt, psychologically, like there was a bully at my back, trying to push my face underwater. W. was the public face of it (saying, for example [in 2002], that the citizens outside the White House protesting his plans to invade Iraq just didn't understand his reasons, and weren't smart enough, and didn't have the right to have those reasons explained to them), but he was, to a large extent, simply echoing the attitudes of the popular culture at large.

Now, that bully has backed off, and I can breathe again. No wonder I'm feeling a little light-headed; it's been a long eight years.

Obama's election does affirm that anyone can be president -- even a Geek, editor of the student paper, and president of the Debate Team.

"I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one… And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”

-- Theodore Parker, 19th Century Unitarian Minister and abolitionist.

"...let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr., 20th Century Baptist Minister and community organizer.

"It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day."

-- Barack Hussein Obama, 20th Century secular Community organizer, and 21st century president-elect of the United States.

---

Two things struck me, this morning, as I was drifting to sleep after watching the election, and thinking about this passage of Obama's speech:

1. That he was citing great, progressive thinkers and activists from our past, and taking their ideas one step further. It's no longer our role to wait patiently for the arc of the moral universe (history) to bend for justice -- it is our job to reach out and make it bend toward justice.



2. When Obama was born into an interracial marriage in 1961, interracial marriage was illegal in 22 states. And the arguments against interracial marriages are basically the same as arguments about gay marriage.

I have no doubt that there are still people who are alive, who were watching the tv last night, thinking that Barack Obama should never have been born.

My hope is that "identity politics" can be a force for good, too, and seeing his face on the nightly news, and hearing his voice respected as the voice of America around the world will broaden the bigots' view of what a "real family" is. I mean, familiarity can breed contempt... but it can also help to evaporate squick, and the knee-jerk hatred that comes with it.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it does bend toward justice -- especially if we reach out collectively and pull it in that direction.

Same-sex marriage bans cannot, and will not, be long for this world.

I'm too antsy and distracted to think about my NaNo novel until after tomorrow. I'm stuck, emotionally, between the eager anticipation of Christmas Eve, back when I was seven, and the dread of an impending root canal. There's a 95% chance that this time, Wednesday, I'll be feeling like singing "Joy to the World." But that 5% chance of pain is still hanging over my head like a dark cloud.

And no, I'm not filtering or f'locking this, because I think this is too important to preach to the choir.

I'm just thinking how long and depressing these past four years have been for me.

As someone who is a Joyful Troll (and I'm using that term in as serious and sincere a way as possible), what's been more depressing over the last eight years is not so much Bush's policies per se (as much as I disagree with them, for various logical and philosophical reasons), but more that those policies have been promoted and supported by appealing almost exclusively to fear and hatred.

And that's what depresses me about a possible McCain presidency.

Way back when McCain was one of seven or eight Republican candidates (and an underdog within that group), he sat down for an hour-long discussion on Charlie Rose. As I listened to him speak, I thought: "Well, I disagree with about eighty-five percent of his policies, but at least he's against torture, and believes global warming is real. So he'd still be much better for the country than Bush has been."

And then, when he became The Candidate, it was like he drank from Karl Rove's potion beaker, and turned from a Dr. Jekyll into a Mr. Hyde. His campaign has been even more negative and fear-based than Bush's. As dispicable as the Swiftboat ads against Kerry were, even the worst of them never got close to questioning Kerry's U.S. citizenship, or suggesting that he wished to overturn the fabric of our government. But that's been the unrelenting drumbeat of the Republican commercials, from the Presidential ads to the local people running for congress.

I just hope that tomorrow, I will be vindicated in my belief that people are, inheriently more generous and kind than fearful and greedy.

I'd be much more complacent about the outcome of tomorrow's election if McCain's campaign had been carried out with the same thoughtful tone and careful explanation of his positions as he demonstrated on that Charlie Rose interview.

The fact that he never did, but allowed his campaign to be shaped by the hardest core partisans in his party, says volumes about his judgment, imnsho, and doesn't give me any confidence that he'd return to his more reasonable self if he should finally succeed in getting into that chair in the Oval Office. I'd also be more convinced that he really is a maverick, if he'd stood up for his choice of Lieberman for VP -- someone who is an old friend -- rather than allowing his spin doctors to pick a stranger for him.

My absentee ballot arrived in the mail on Monday, I filled out the little circles and had Audrey sign the envelope as a Witness, yesterday. Naturally, I voted straight Democrat...

You know about the presidential race. And it won't take much to search for our senate race (Both former governors are running: Mark Warner [D] against Jim Gilmore [R]; Warner is heavily favored to win.

But you probably won't hear a peep about the race in my Congressional district: Two-time incumbant Randy Forbes [R] against first-time runner Andrea Miller [D].

Here's the Randy Forbes Profile from my local paper, the Virginian-Pilot (Note that Cheney and Rove both campaigned hard for him during his first run for office during a special election).

He ran unopposed in 2002, and would have run upposed in 2004, if a young volunteer for John Edwards' campaign, Johnathon Menefee, hadn't walked into the Democratic Committee headquarters looking to volunteer for the Democratic candidate. There wasn't any candidate, so they volunteered Menefee for the job.

Forbes won with 65% of the vote.

He's up for election again. And, like he did four years ago, he's turning down invitations for interviews -- he doesn't think he needs to give any.

So, imagine my glee when I checked out a sample ballot online and saw that someone was daring to run against him this time: Andrea Miller. I checked out her website, and down at the bottom, was this quote:

As the land of the brave, we cannot waste our time living in permanent fear of continuously shifting enemies. If we are going to fight a war on terror, then we must fight a war against our own fear of people that are different from us. If we are the land of the free, then we must permit questions, debate and even protest.

And so I colored in the circle next to her name with great carefulness and glee.

I'm not holding my breath. I don't expect her to win; Randy Forbes pretty much owns the political machine in this district. But she may benefit from Obama's popularity, right now, and get 45% of the vote, instead of 35%. Every step along the way counts.

And if she actually does win, I will be a very happy citizen, indeed.

(Cross-posted to gimp_vent):

When I went to vote in the primaries, back in February, I discovered A) that I had a new polling location, but failed to get notification in the mail, and B) when my aide and I got to the new polling place, I discovered it was far more crowded, none of the electronic voting machines were at wheelchair height, and because of the crowds, the poll workers were unwilling to take the time to adjust one of them to make it so, though they did provide a poll worker to push the buttons I told her to.

So, before going off to vote, this time, I just wanted to double check everything.

What follows are snippets from the Virgina State Board of Elections Website:

About my polling place:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Accessibility Information
ADA Compliant: No

Accessibility Restrictions:
No restrictions found.
--------
Excuse Me, but: What?! It's not ADA compliant, but there are no restrictions? This is a massive failure of logic.

So I surf on over to the "Voters with Special Needs Page" And I find this passage:

4. Is the voting equipment in my polling place going to be accessible?

In accordance with the Help America Vote Act every polling location in Virginia must be equipped with at least one accessible voting system that will allow all voters with a disability to vote the same private and independent manner as a voter without a disability. This change will be fully accomplished by January 1st 2006.

*If you feel you have not been given the opportunity to vote in accordance with the Help America Vote Act, summarized above, please follow the link at the bottom of the page to the voter feedback form. *

So I follow the link. And find this:

Feedback Form for Voters with Special Needs:

In the Virginia State Board of Elections’ continuing effort to ensure that voting is accessible to all voters, this form is being provided with the hope that you may be able to assist us in reaching our goals. If you have a complaint, concern, suggestion, or praise regarding the accessibility of any portion of the registration and voting process for senior citizens and or people living with disabilities, please complete this form and click SUBMIT. If you wish to receive a response from the State Board of Elections, please provide contact information.

This is the note that I wrote (with a complaint, praise, and suggestion):

"I am a wheelchair user, and when going to vote in the primary election, on February 12, 2008 (at Oscar Smith High School), I was disappointed that none of the electronic voting machines were accessible to wheelchair users (or any other voter who might wish to sit, while voting, such as those who use crutches, canes, or walkers).

I was given assistance, from one of the poll workers on duty, who pushed the buttons I could not reach, but I prefer to vote in private.

Since the electronic voting are portable enough to be brought out for curbside voting, I suggest that one or two may be placed on a table, so that a voter may either wheel up to it, or pull up a regular chair provided for that purpose, which can be moved out of the way if needed.

Thank you for your consideration."

When I clicked [Submit], however, I got this screen:

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, yeah. That's a big help. Thanks so much.

(And about that curbside voting: poll workers at the first place made that suggestion for me with a great deal more eagerness than they had for the idea of adjusting the height of the voting machine's legs. The latter solution would be, I imagine, a lot less awkward then holding a bulky piece of electronics steady while someone makes the most important decision of the year. It would also let me vote in view of the public, which is the main reason I don't like to vote absentee.

But I'm seriously considering going the absentee route, this year, anyway, because at least then I have the assurance of a paper trail.