Jean Synodinos: Randomness

I’m incredibly honored to be going to the Texas State Democratic Convention in June as an Obama-pledged delegate from Precinct 463 in Travis County, Texas.

Along with thousands of other Texas Dems, I’ve been learning about our state’s sincerely bizarre “prima-caucus” process of choosing delegates and deciding platform.

One of the skills that appears most valuable to understanding how delegates are chosen is math. The formulas—almost algorithmic in their complexity—for determining the number of delegates (with an excellent commitment to diversity that includes sex, race, sexual orientation and disability) is extraordinary.

I am a babe in these woods, but the woods are SO BEAUTIFUL!

I admit it – I, too, was shaken by the revolving clips of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. So I listened very closely to Obama’s speech in Philly last week, as well hours’ worth of punditry analyzing it to death on cable news programming. A lot of voices declared that because he didn’t throw his pastor under the bus and denounce him as a human being, Obama can’t be trusted. A lot of voices argued that he ended up throwing his white grandmother under the bus by mentioning that she’d expressed racist sentiments to him. And a lot of people believed it was the most thoughtful, adult analysis of race in America in forty years.

Count me among the last group. And here’s where I’m truly baffled by many of the other responses I’ve heard.

I’ve heard a number of pundits – from the left and the right – say that Obama can no longer possibly hold the mantle of a "unity candidate" without having renounced his pastor. I confess that I am shocked by what I perceive as a complete misunderstanding of his speech and his actions, especially since we presumably live in such a deeply Christian nation. (In full disclosure, I’m not a Christian, nor do I affiliate with any specific faith. I was raised in the Greek Orthodox church, however, and come at this with full appreciation of my understanding of Christian values, as well my knowledge that the majority of voters in our country self-identify as Christians.)

So based on my understanding of Christianity, Obama’s speech was the epitome of Christian values and wholly unifying in its primary message.

Is not a core principle of Christianity to “love the sinner – not the sin?” Isn’t that how he was eloquently describing all of us, explaining how he could no more discard his preacher than he could his black community or his white grandmother? He does not love their sins; he loves them as people.

He is bringing us to the correct question: How on earth can we possibly unify as a nation if we do not embrace everyone – both the angry old black man and the fear-based old white woman? Had he denounced either one of them, he would have betrayed the very quality of unity to which he has spoken. It strikes me that it would have been the equivalent of Peter’s denial of Christ.

So I’m baffled by those responses. Obama’s speech, for all its intellect, was far more Christian in its humility, far-sightedness and potential for change than any speech I’ve ever heard a politician make.

Which is why it was also so politically risky.

Politics—feeding frenzy that it is, now—demands its candidates and elected officials to give the public and pundits what it “wants to hear” in easily-digested sound bytes. The rhetoric of politics has become fear-based in recent years, and it’s the presumed duty of candidates to calm our fears—fast, too. Politicians are no longer permitted to speak at length about complex issues in adult language. Oratory has been overturned for the focus-group-tested turn of phrase.

Which is why his campaign both works and fails. It’s manna to the minds and hearts of many Americans who have thoroughly had it with the politics of the last 40 years, and it terrifies those who are not ready to be challenged by it.

Had Senator Obama thoroughly rejected his preacher as so many have—and still—call for, I would have determined it an act of hypocrisy, and my disappointment would have been enormous.

As self-confessed "political junkies," Charles and I have watched thousands of hours of coverage over the last year and more around this November’s presidential elections. It's one of our common denominators – seems we were both reared this way and consumption of political news is in our blood. While my greatest TV crush as a kid was certainly David Cassidy, my first was on Garrick Utley, the NBC floor correspondent at the 1972 conventions. Remember that one, kids? That’s the one where McGovern’s pick for V.P., Senator Thomas Eagleton, had to withdraw after it was revealed he’d undergone electroshock therapy as part of mental health treatment? I remember going to bed the night I heard that news and thinking two things: 1) poor Senator Eagleton – no one deserves to be treated that way; and, 2) the Dems have blown it and Nixon’s gonna win again.

I’ve been hooked ever since.

This is an Obama household. While never a knee-jerk reaction to support his candidacy, sometimes I wonder if it wasn’t inevitable after being so radically moved by his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

The rest of the women in my family don’t appear so certain, though they’re all sure where I stand. I’m pretty sure mom and my aunt are going for Hillary, though conversations with mom have had a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” quality to them. I’ve had the pleasure of some great email correspondence with my sister and my niece (who is thrilled to be voting in her first election this year). No matter how these women vote in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, I’m glad to come from generations of committed Democrats who have always reveled in our collective right to vote.

Those emails with my sister and niece generated the following list of Top 10 Reasons to vote for Senator Obama. Here they are, just as I wrote to my amazing niece this week. Other than the first one, they were written in no particular order:

1. I've decided to vote my hopes and not my fears. This was my original reason, and can probably be traced back to the remarkable speech he delivered at the Democratic Convention in 2004 (find it on YouTube—it’s beautiful!). I’ve waited my entire life for a candidate to inspire people to action—I’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s more than special, it’s potentially transformative. Obama calls people to action. In the same way that Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Obama reminds us that "we are the change we've been waiting for." I believe that's the only way we'll truly get out of the mess that this country is in. On the other hand, Hillary's message has been "let me lead" (until, of course, she co-opted his “Yes We Can” to “Yes We Will”). To me, there's a world of difference.

2. Hillary and her husband are deeply polarizing political figures, and I don’t believe she can win a general election. That’s why hard core right wing talk show hosts are aching to see her get the nomination. Need proof? Here’s what happened in Ohio and Texas (and I understand it’s happening in Pennsylvania right now). Right wing talk radio convinced a number of their listeners to switch parties and vote for Hillary in the primary. CNN reported that more than 113,000 Republicans did just that in Texas, perhaps giving her the edge in the popular vote (though there’s not enough evidence to suggest it was due to the right wing radio hosts alone). Apparently, the tactic might have had greater impact in the Ohio vote: (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_10_percent_of_hillarys_votes_come.html)

3. His candidacy has proven good for our democracy. After two generations of dwindling numbers at the polls, Obama’s candidacy is bringing record numbers of people -- and youth in particular -- into the process. It used to be cool to be disaffected and not vote. The opposite is true now. And I fear that if Hillary gets the nomination (especially if it comes through Super Delegates), all those once-disaffected voters will disappear back into the woodwork come general election time.

4. Dynasties are bad for democracy, and I’m fairly sure our Founding Fathers would agree – since it’s pretty much one of the core concepts they were leaving behind in England. You and your sister have never known anyone other than a Bush or Clinton in the White House. That's messed up. Elect Hillary, and you could be in your mid-20s before that changes (unless Jeb Bush got elected then...). That's REALLY messed up. That's England during the House of York and the House of Lancaster. That's not the U.S. Moreover, Bill Clinton has shown himself to be an uncontrollable, narcissistic guy who is more than a little likely to throw his weight around and make this a "dual presidency" (also, not exactly in the Constitution). In fact, I'd bet my whole life savings on it. I know he was a good president in many, many ways, but his time is over, and the fact that they had to muzzle him on the campaign trail after South Carolina won’t mean a thing after she takes the oath of office. I believe that the Constitution was a brilliant piece of work, as were the men who crafted it. I believe they’d be horrified by the concept of these two dynasties holding the most important office for a potential 28 years (36 if we get Jeb… I’m joking a little there).

5. The Clintons have been the first and most aggressive mudslingers in this campaign. If you’ve watched CNN or MSNBC or PBS or Fox or network news, you’ve certainly heard about their “kitchen sink strategy.” Two examples:

o Bill Clinton threw down the race card and behaved very, very poorly as a human being on the campaign prior to the South Carolina primary (which is when I made my final decision not to vote for Hillary). See the muzzle thing above.

o Florida and Michigan primaries. All Dem candidates agreed not to campaign in either state because both states broke party rules and held their primaries early. Per party instruction, each state understood that their delegates would not be able to be seated at the convention. In Michigan , where it was possible, all candidates except Hillary removed their names from the ballot (and she STILL didn’t get a majority of the vote). Only Hillary campaigned in those states, even though she was quoted as saying about Michigan that it “didn’t count for anything.” Now, she presses to change the rules under the guise of acting on behalf of the voters? Please. Let’s call this one what it is: bullshit.

o Even after the polarizing issues Obama has confronted recently, Hillary rates much lower in polls around the issue of trustworthiness. Check it out here: (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus-Obama-McCain.aspx)


6. VERY important: We should watch the flow of money in this campaign. Hillary has taken money from every political action committee under the sun -- including pharmaceutical companies, the insurance industry, and military contractors. That money never comes without strings attached. Obama hasn't taken any PAC money, and while I'm not naive enough to believe he isn't a political creature at heart, I can trust, from the start that he's a whole lot less beholden to "special interests." See that Gallup poll around trustworthiness, above.

7. Transparency in government. Obama is asserting a belief that citizens have a right to know what's going on with the government -- no more deals made behind closed doors. No more secret testimonies. This has become an issue over their discussion of health care reform, in particular. He wants hearings with insurance companies to be aired on C-SPAN. Hillary won't make that pledge; and, of course she won't -- they've funded her campaign. And have you wondered why the Clintons haven’t released their tax return (and say they won’t until AFTER the PA primary)? I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I’m gonna bet it’s got something to do with how Bill Clinton’s foundation is getting funded by some less-than-scrupulous overseas investors looking to make profits in, of all places, Africa and Dubai. I may not be totally on the mark here, but I’ll be when we see it, it won’t be too far off the mark (the NY Times has been investigating this for a while now… we shall see). BTW, they also won’t release a list of donors to the Clinton library, or her list of congressional earmarks for her home state. Who the hell is getting all that earmark money? What favors will have to be returned there?

8. Hillary’s exaggerated a number of claims about her “vetted experience”—and perhaps have lied about others—which became clearer this week after the National Archives released 11,000 pages of her calendar. Here are a few examples:

o NAFTA: Don’t believe the hype that she was opposed to it from the start. Her newly-released calendar indicates she appeared publicly on behalf of the administration to plead its case at least four times. I personally think it’s galling that she’s lied about this to Ohioans and is now going to try to do it again in Pennsylvania – two of the states hit hardest by this dismal failure of a policy.

o FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act). She’s claimed on the campaign trail to have been a leading force behind this legislation, but you sure don’t see anything on her calendar to suggest she was taking all those meetings. There’s also major debate as to her actual role in promoting the SCHIP program which provides critical health insurance coverage to children of the working poor who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In the years I worked at the Children’s Hospital Association of Texas, CHIP was a pretty hot topic, and I don’t ever recall her name once being mentioned in connection to this legislation.

o She wants us to believe she has the same level of foreign policy experience as, say, John McCain, right? OK, she certainly does have more experience than Obama, but she has also seriously inflated the role she played in all those trips to other countries as First Lady, based on her calendar. Additionally, I’m stunned that no one on TV has pointed out the obvious problem with this “experience” argument, which is this: She wants us to acknowledge that Bill was a foreign policy whiz (and he was pretty good) – but Bill have even less experience than Obama when he took the oath of office! For an analysis of her foreign policy claims, visit the nonpartisan Annenberg Center ’s FactCheck.org here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html

o Hillary is forever mentioning her “35 years of public service,” but how about noting that 15 of those years was as a corporate lawyer with the Rose Law Firm, during which time she served on corporate boards that included, among others, WalMart. WALMART !! She also speaks with affection of her first job working at the Children’s Defense Fund – which is great – but you probably didn’t realize that she held the job for less than a year. It was also the only job she ever held in the non-profit sector, so it personally strikes me that her claims here are fairly exaggerated.

9. When I was still on the fence and undecided, I decided to check myself to see if I was leaning one way or the other because of sex or race. So I pretended they were both white guys. On policy issues, they're pretty much a draw. Their core beliefs on how to deal with health care, the war, etc., are actually quite comparable. But here we have two ground-breaking candidacies in terms of gender and race. So I looked at it this way: If Hillary was a white guy, I'd be listening to a fairly caustic and uninspiring candidate who talks to me like every other politician has ever talked to me (which is to say, doling out whatever she thinks I want to hear). If Obama was a white guy, he’d still be inspiring – he talks to us like we are actually adults. Imagine that. And it feels fundamentally wrong to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, if I don't believe she's the best leader. I was on the fence with this one, but I'm not any more.

10. Having said that... they DO differ on their take on diplomacy in foreign policy, and I think this is critical to our rebuilding our image across the globe. He's willing to talk to our enemies, right off the bat. She's indicated that she believes a president should only let our emissaries (like Sec. of State) talk to hostile governments "at least for the first year" (how arbitrary!). To me, Hillary's perspective is more of the same grand-standing bellicose U.S. behavior that got us into this mess in the first place. She's a war hawk -- as much as McCain from her voting record -- and I want a president who is more committed to diplomacy and peace. Both of them promise to get us out of Iraq in similar ways and turn appropriate attention to the front in Afghanistan, but when it comes to dealing with North Korea or Iran, I strongly prefer Obama's policy. Personally, I'm also not happy about the fact that when she cast her vote to authorize war in Iraq she voted against the Levin Amendment which would have required the President to try more diplomacy -- and report back to Congress on the results -- before force could be authorized. You’ve probably heard her say on the campaign trail that she cast her vote for the “Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq Resolution of 2002” because she thought Bush would try more diplomacy first, right? Well, please know that on the floor of the Senate, when she cast that vote, she said she was casting a vote “that might lead to war” and doing it “with conviction.”

There it is. One through ten. The way I see it, anybody who wants to be president has got to have an ego the size of Montana . I also know that no one gets into a campaign to lose, and politicians of all political stripes will do and say a lot of things to get themselves elected. But when I look at the totality of the candidates, I continue to believe that Barack Obama has far greater leadership potential for us right now, and Hillary Clinton is far more untrustworthy and polarizing.

The news this summer has kicked my backside, and I think I may need to tune out and regroup for a bit. When I find myself on common ground with Tony Soprano, something needs to shift. Am taking suggestions on this...

Sure, we all see that the world is clearly hanging at some odd angle these days, no? The weather here in central Texas early this summer was so uncharacteristically wet that native plants died, and we Austinites experienced a bizarre Seattle-like depression.

Man-made constructs (like government and politics--my personal obsession) went equally askew. The guy we're supposed to trust more than any other in our government (talking about you, Mr. Attorney General), proved to be as bad a liar as an average 6-year old kid... Our President commuted the sentence of a man convicted of obstruction of justice in a case involving national security... Our Vice President claimed he is neither executive nor legislator, and, apparently is a new branch of government altogether.

OK. So maybe we could collectively cling to sports -- our Great American Pasttimes -- for comfort? But lo... foiled there as well. Barry Bonds can hit 'em, but can't seem to do it without steroids (and lyin' like a cheatin' husband). An NBA ref is found to be fixing pro ball games.

But the one that brings me to my knees, the story prompts more than head-shaking and finger-pointing in the general direction of the television, is the tale of Michael Vick, NFL pro who has just pleaded guilty to torturing and killing dogs in the ongoing dog-fighting games he ran.

And this is where I finally -- finally -- think I understand Tony Soprano: The Man Who'd Kill His Best Friend But (Literally) Wouldn't Hurt a Fly.

Children and animals. Animals and children. Stories come to light about the respective torture and murder of these innocents. Our souls are crushed by attempts to fathom it all, but then there's this burning inside. At least, inside me and Tony. I confess to feelings that amount to more than grief -- they wish for some sort of vengeful and painful justice.

I barely know what to do with a level of grief for victims and perpetrators I do not know.

Not having been blessed with children of my own, I am still a proud stepmom (Hi, Willow) and aunt (Hi, Molly & Emily), and if it came to it, I know I’d instinctively insinuate my body in between any of them and the threat of violence in a nanosecond. I’m similarly committed to the dogs with whom I’ve shared a home. See my blog posting on old Cindy’s passing in early 2006. Young schnauzer mix Freida has been with us for just over a year. There was Candy, the beagle from my youth. I don’t know what it says about a person that some of their most precious and profound relationships are formed with dogs, and I’m not sure I care. If Michael Vick came anywhere near these kind creatures, I’d kick him in the balls. To start. And I’ve never done that to anyone before.

I am thoroughly challenged by the intensity of my (primal? unevloved?) response to Mr. Vick’s actions. And while I wish he were a different kind of man, it makes me also wish I was a different kind of woman – one a little less like Tony Soprano. Remember his response to the ducks in his pool? Remember when he learned that his nephew sat on and killed little dog Cosette on a heroin high? Remember Ralph's demise after the death of Pie-O-My?

I'm sharing some of these primitive instincts. Protection of the innocent is one thing. Vengeful instinct is another, yes it is.

What’s a girl to to? I'll think I’ll start by taking a look at my addiction to the news; as a junkie for the stuff I know that my TV is feeding the beast inside. Still, I know that turning off the news does not make the news disappear…

I'll keeping loving on my husband and dog and friends and family, because I'm lucky and pretty blessed to have all these incredibly cool critters in my life.

I'll go pick up the guitar and get to work on writing the next songs, go out and hear some great music, and play as many gigs as I can because that's some powerful medicine, and it always works.

And I'll get on my knees and do all I can to muster some Universal Love Energy for the rest of the world. I’ll include Mr. Vick and wish for his peace instead of his pain. And I’ll keep at it until I can be sincere, cause there’s no way this is going to come easily.

But otherwise, I’m pretty stumped. Any thoughts out there? I don't wanna feel like Tony Soprano any more.

Happy Independence Day, all.

Yep. The birth of a nation. The overthrow of tyranny. Liberty for all.

Yep.

Let's yak about the latest chapter in our current administration's tyrannical choke hold on the People with a capital "P". Let's yak about the President's commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby earlier this week.

Here's what we can factually say about the event:

1) President Bush has always maintained the position that he is vehemently opposed to commutations and pardons unless evidence comes to light suggesting a trial was somehow unfair. It's in his autobiography. It's also evidenced by his very short list of commutations/pardons, both as President and Governor of Texas.

2) He "respects" the jury's verdict but believes the sentence too harsh. This flies in the face of #1 above. Recall also that more executions were conducted under his tenure as governor than any other governor in something like 60 years.

3) The sentence was, by Federal law, absolutely within the guidelines.

4) Both the judge and special prosecutor involved in the case were Bush appointees -- both law-and-order kinda guys.

Now, here are some assumptions we can extrapolate from the verdict:

1) Bush felt enormous pressure from the neocon base and decided to throw them a bone. (O.K., but I think it's more to it than that.)

2) With poll numbers at Nixonian levels, Bush decided he had nothing to lose by commuting the sentence of a loyal servant. (O.K., he does seem to value loyalty, but it's still not enough...)

3) (Representing my personal take on things), "Bushney" wasn't about to let "loaded gun" Libby spend an hour in jail.

Supporting this extrapolation?

a) An analysis of Scooter's defense shows that he essentially threw himself on the sword for this administration. Recall that the defense initially planned to call the Veep to the stand and then changed its mind, putting the defendant in the middle of the beltway and letting a Mack truck's worth of evidence plow through him. Mr. Libby's decision to "take one for the team" suggests that "the team" promised him there'd be no jail time in exchange for his silence.

b) I've read that Scooter's marriage to Harriet Grant is one of those inside-the-beltway miracles, matching a high-powered neocon with an equally high-powered liberal attorney. Another James Carville/Mary Matalin pairing. I would bet that the lioness (Ms. Grant) made it abundantly clear that if her husband spent a second in jail she would take down the guys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is a personal hunch, but my guess is that Bush betrayed his "moral stand" on commutations in order to keep the lady from talking. She doesn't actually believe in the kool-aid. But she does believe in her family. I really get that.

No matter. At the end of the day (Independence Day), it's worth noting that there are, in fact, far-reaching consequences to this commutation.

For instance, we've just witnessed the birth of a new argument for relaxed sentencing. Defense attorneys, pleading on behalf of their convicted clients, will now be able to effectively argue that if Libby didn't do jail time for what a crime against national security, that their client certainly doesn't deserve it, either. Don't think it'll happen? You just watch.

Most importantly, the President has sent a global message that no one in his administration will have to be held accountable for illegal actions, as long as they remain loyal. All loyal foxes may continue to run the hen house without fear.

Again, friends, we gotta remain vigilant and insist to our elected officials in Congress that this administration be held accountable for its actions. Do we need to review the reasons why? (Lord, what a lengthy list.) Maybe. Regularly.

But today, let's just recall that it's Independence Day, the day upon which we recognize the decision to overthrow tyranny and craft a government based on incredibly well-conceived checks and balances, in which no man or woman is above the rule of law.

Last night, Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) equated the commuting of Libby's sentence to Nixon's firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox -- the watershed moment that defines the point of absolutely no return, eventually leading to Nixon's resignation. Olbermann called for Bush to do the same (nice try, Keith).

We shall see... Personally, I thought the administration's most absurd moment came last week w/ Cheney's declaration that he is neither executive nor legislator -- neither fish nor foul.

In truth, though, this administration continues, week after week, to top itself (or bottom itself--is that possible?) with new ways to flaunt its disregard for the Constitution--and The People.

So keep it up, kids! Set off some metaphorical fireworks of your own today. We've only got one country. I don't know about you, but I WANT IT BACK.

That Cheney cracks me up.

Until this week, I’ve pretty much been limited to feeling appalled and frightened by all that the Veep has wrought in his on-off again roles as puppet master and/or lone ranger.

But upon hearing news this week that Dick has declared himself immune to oversight because his office is not part of the executive branch… well, I burst out laughing. I really did.

And I haven’t stopped. Shooting a guy in the face last year was one thing, but this?

I’m genuinely appreciative of the fact that beltway insiders – pundits and elected officials alike – can barely veil their sarcasm. I’m grateful that a Google News search reveals dozens of OpEds – U.S. and international – decrying Cheney’s move. Piss and vinegar were even evident on Fox News Sunday. In response to neo-con Bill Kristol’s ridiculous insight that oversight is a “pain in the neck,” NPR’s Juan Williams remarked the Veep must surely be in “some undisclosed bunker in his mind.”

Do you find yourself – as I do – increasingly frustrated by the never-ending obfuscations of the Constitution and the rule of law by this White House? My wise husband, Charles, had to remind me the other day that Congress, in its new attempts at oversight, can’t move as quickly as most of us wish. Congress can’t turn on a dime; it’s more like the QE II, a vessel of enormous proportion that takes the better part of a day to slow down enough to enter port. What may appear to me as lethargy is, Charles reminds me, the design of our founding fathers to ensure a reasoned approach to governance.

Those guys were pretty smart cookies. But, were they around today, they’d call this what it is – tyranny – and I’d bet they’d be persuading us to host a Washington Tea Party. Tom Paine said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”

I’m glad to have gotten a good laugh out of this episode, but I know it will be dragged first through the gutter that is our Justice Department, then through the courts and perhaps all the way up to the very set of Justices that are responsible for the mess we’re in.

What then, is to be done?

May those of us outside the beltway continue to be vigilant in holding all our elected officials accountable for their actions. Don’t let up. My personal fear is that if we rest – even slightly, now – the Bad Guys will get away with it all. Just imagine that. Imagine. Imagine. It’s not at all inconceivable that no one will ever be held accountable for this administration’s high crimes. Don’t let up. To quote Jerry Lewis, “Do it for the kids.”

Oh, the absurdity. Eugene Ionesco… Jean Paul Sartre… these guys couldn’t have dreamed this up for the stage and they were pretty imaginative souls. Unless, perhaps, we are, in fact, living in Sartre’s “No Exit” and this is some kind of hell.

OK. I just stopped laughing.

Five years ago today, I lost a breast to cancer. April Fools. The irony was never lost on me.

Five days ago, I had a clean mammogram. Five years, that magical number. The Big Sigh of Relief.

I was completely confident of my health going in for the exam, but those 15 minutes waiting for the radiologist to take a look at the films shook me to my core. I remember noting in those moments just how horrifying a toll this disease can take.

There was no history of breast cancer in my family. Then, five years and one month ago, my kid sister found a lump. Her terror was so palpable, and I cried at the thought of her struggling through illness with her two daughters. Her biopsy turned out negative, but out of respect and support for her, I went and got a mammogram.

Imagine my surprise when the radiologist said they saw something "of concern."

Ten days and several medical opinions later, I underwent a mastectomy and reconstruction of the right breast.

The details of the story are quite common and a lot like every other story I've learned from the many, many people I've met who've been affected by the family of diseases known collectively as breast cancer. What does seem to matter these five years later is this:

Love appears from all kinds of places when you least expect it.

My sister's benign lump got me to the mammogram; I've taken that as one of those Miracles from the Universe that saved my ass.

The health care system in the U.S. is fundamentally broken (but you knew that, didn't you?), which means we must all be our own best advocates for our health care -- and for the care of those we love.

Dreams deferred is no way to live. This life is way too short for that nonsense.

My cancer was caught early. A mastectomy is a big deal, but I recovered quickly from my treatment and never looked back. In other words, early detection not only saves lives -- it saves the quality of lives.

Here's something else I seem to share with a lot of survivors I've met: I would never wish cancer on my worst enemy, but everything I've learned from the experience has made a positive impact on my life. I like my life a whole lot more today than my life of five years ago. It's not necessarily easier, but it's considerably more authentic. My cancer did not define me, but it was a wake-up call of the highest order. And I owe it a certain amount of thanks.

A word to anyone living in Austin, TX who is coping with breast cancer -- either as a patient, friend or family member. Consider contacting the Breast Cancer Resource Center of Austin (www.bcrc.org). They were the first, best phone call I made after my diagnosis. The center is run by women who have walked the walk; their compassion and commitment is unparalleled. My debt is enormous, and it's my honor and privelege to give them a percentage of the profits from my CD "Lucky".

Finally, RIP to my friend Susanne Millsaps. We lost you to breast cancer this past year after an amazing run. You are monstrously missed.

Really now. If you were, say, Dick Cheney, and you were out hunting in one of those hunting farms where you didn't actually have to "hunt" for your prey cause they were all, essentially, lame, sitting ducks, would you go in for the kill?

I'm just askin'...

Seems kinda cruel and unfair, doesn't it? But today I get it. Now that the November 7th election has put the Dems in charge again, it feels like we can pretty much shoot fish in a barrel. It'd be so easy!

And pretty misguided, I think.

So here's to a new Congress, to yet another "Morning in America", and let's hold on to the hope that this new Congress will not be out for blood, but set their priorities on finding a real resolution to our war in Iraq, a real raise in the minimum wage, a real implementation of the 9/11 Commission's findings, and more real answers.

Yes, personally, I'd love to take down this administration and try them for a myriad of crimes and lies. But all of that can wait, happily, if it means the lives of fellow citizens can be improved in the interim.

I'm not sayin' -- I'm just sayin'...

We have just passed the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. We are about to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Our hearts break again for all those who perished, lost loved ones, lost their homes, memories, lives. What must these respective anniversaries be doing to their personal psyches?

I've started this second paragraph maybe... oh... twenty times. Trying to summarize in a few sentences my grief over the direction our nation has/is taking (both domestically and internationally), is too Herculean for me.

So it's simply this:

Neocons have stolen our country from us. Let's take it back with purpose and passion.

My pet peeve for the week was hard to pick, but I guess I keep coming back to President Bush's thoroughly absurd conclusion that we are at war with "Islamic Fascists."

What is fascism? Defined:

"FACISM: a system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM".

Not a lot of definitions out there made me think of Islam. Nor do they make me think of Christianity or any other recognized world religion. But they SURE made me think of the current administration, the point being that our President and the Neocons are, quite frankly, insane with power.

I'm gonna say that again: our leaders are insane with power. So here are just a few current reasons to become involved, at any level, in our nation's future:

INTERNATIONAL:
-- This absurdly conducted "war on terror"
-- Illegal war in Iraq (now beset by civil war and unkown numbers of casualties.
-- Pending conflicts with Iran and North Korea.
-- Where's Osama??

EXECUTIVE POWER RUN AMUCK:
-- Presidential Signing Statements (800+)
-- Impotent Congress
-- Supreme Court
-- Guantanemo Bay and illegal detainment.
-- NSA wiretapping.

CORPORATE STEWARDSHIP:
-- Oil companies (especially Exxon) and their record breaking profits.
-- Ownership of energy resources.
-- Health care that's not about health but about insurance company profits.
-- Demise of net neutrality that would make what you see online driven by the highest bidder.
-- Outsourced high wage jobs replaced by low wage service industry jobs.

AND WHILE WE'RE AT IT:
-- Minimum wage.
-- Poverty.
-- Environment.
-- New Orleans.
-- Education.
-- Social security.

and...

-- VOTING MACHINES.

Peace to us all.

Just a quick reminder to everyone who might be reading this.

Gosh, we're all busy people. We spend ridiculous amounts of time with our noses to the grindstone. Look at how many of us walk everywhere with purpose, thoroughly oblivious to the world around us.

Just a quick reminder to stop. Just for five minutes. Don't skip forward to listen to tunes (but come back and do it soon!). Just stop everything.

Then go tell someone you really love that you love them.

Breathe when you say it. Breathe when you say it. Breathe when you say it.

And it'll sound like the first time you've ever said it.

Hope you've made it to the music page to listen to tracks from the new CD "Breathe." I just want to take a minute to thank the players on this CD who just sunk their teeth into every track with groove, grit and grace.

Thanks to Rob Hooper (Colin Gilmore) for those drums and percussion, and to Brad Houser (Edie Brickell & The New Bohemians) for the bass. Greatest thanks to Charles Rieser (The Scabs, Boombox) for electric, baritone and added acoustic guitar tracks. Charles: finest man in the room, provacateur prince and partner in crimes and misdemeanors.

Check out their fine, fine work now! These bad boys are gonna help us get an early start to a real summer vacation.

xo,
jean

... or, Why You Might NOT Want To Vote In The Upcoming Primary Elections...

Maybe it's the moon knocking me sideways, but are you as weary of the two-party system as I am? Good gravy, are there only two ways to look at the world? Two sets of values to which people can fully relate?

Even if I'm a hardcore liberal (I am), it seems to everyone in this household that perfectly reasonable people can choose to be anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. While that doesn't reflect MY personal politics, there are surely a plethora of people whose personal politics do not conveniently fall on either the left or right side of the fence. I mean, doncha think??

Which leads me to the feel a very strong need to see more independent candidates on the ballot -- whether I vote for them or not at the end of the day.

But what's a Texan to do? (Lord, I'm from the east coast and never thought I'd have to ask that question).

Well, if you want to see independent candidates on the ballot (Kinky or Carole), then you are required to ABSTAIN from voting in the upcoming primary elections.

Got that?

THEN... you'll have to figure out how to physically sign a petition to aid an independent candidate garner those required signatures to get on the ballot. Not sure how to do that? Visit the candidate's website (like, you know, www.kinkyfriedman.com).

So what's the point of all this? Again, it's not to say I'm inclined one way or another to support any possible indie candidate in Texas -- it's just to say that our two-party system appears fundamentally flawed, incapable of genuinely representing the beautiful array of philosophies available to us.

The idea of not voting in a primary is actually painful to me. Completely contrary to the pull of my DNA. But this year...

With all the grace and dignity of the finest lady, my beautiful and sweet companion of fifteen years died at home yesterday, just 27 days shy of her sixteenth birthday.

Until this past Wednesday, she was still the same puppyish critter who poked a paw in my face too early every morning to suggest that a morning walk might be in order. I wish now I had always acquiesced to every request, but in recent months I’d rolled over and buried my face in the covers more often then not. I knew that if I disappointed her in the moment, all would be forgiven.

And it always was. She was as kind and giving of affection as any creature I’ve ever known. She was my life preserver in rocky times, a stabilizing source of love and routine that prevented me from wallowing in my own muck. She was not without her own eccentricities, including a rather zealous penchant for beer, but she was Alpha Dog in this house, and a little saucer of the stuff on rare occasion seemed to make her feel mightier. Good for her.

Her hearing had weakened in the past year, but her eyesight remained sharp. Until this past week, she would look out the bedroom window, spot a gnarly squirrel in a backyard tree, and make a mad dash through the doggie door to give it what for. Part whippet, she was always lean and fast. Part lab, she was always keen and protective.

Wednesday evening, I found her lying on the dining room floor – a first. She was shaking. She couldn’t get up. I tried to help her to her feet, but her back legs could get no traction on the tile. I moved her to the carpet where she stood and steadied herself, but it was clear that something was awfully wrong.

The vet suggested she had likely had a seizure of some type, and with one x-ray, the probable cause was uncovered – a lemon-sized tumor in her chest. I brought her home. She needed help getting in and out of the car. Her back legs simply could not find terra firma, and she walked slowly, putting all her weight on those front spindles. She seemed deeply confounded by her limited body.

And I was confounded by her limitless grace. The seizure brought on another problem – it was clear her kidneys were shutting down quickly. Food held no interest for her at all, but for the first few hours home, she drank bowfuls of water which passed through her in minutes. Still, she never became incontinent. She continued to rise from her bed with difficulty, make the long slow walk over treacherous, slick tile, push her way through that damned doggie door and relieve herself in the yard. What a friggin lady.

Charles and I stayed up most of that night; we talked about the inevitable decision that had to be made—the hardest and easiest thing I’ve ever done. He only knew Cindy in the few years of her life, and while his affection for her was real and smart and genuine, he knew well enough that the decision was mine. His compassion for me, for Cindy, for the whole damned thing was simple beauty. I’m so grateful.

Though Cindy did not have another seizure, there was no sign of improvement by morning. I knew that between the tumor, the kidneys, her refusal of food and growing disinterest in water, there was no corner to turn. There was just a straight path, and while she’d certainly have gotten there on her own, it felt right to help her make the trip on faster legs. I made an appointment to have the vet come to our home Friday and put her down. We discussed the details with great clarity. They are fuzzy to me now.

The next 24 hours are also blurred. I know that I worked, I cleaned, I talked to Charles, my mom, and my friends Adrienne and Stefanie. I ran out and bought a bottle of Irish Whiskey. I spent a great deal of time laying next to Cindy, staring into those eyes--those eyes!--those brown portals to her soul. She stared right back; her breath was sour. She was so sick.

At 2:30 pm, Friday, January 6, 2006, Cindy was quietly and compassionately put down while resting in her own bed at home.

There are no words to describe my appreciation for our vet, Dr. Leanne Parker, and her technician Tiffany. Their compassion was singularly overwhelming, and I don’t know how they can do this heart-breaking work. Dr. Parker owns the AM/PM Animal Hospital and has been treating Cindy since we moved to south Austin. Someday, when we get another dog, we’ll return to Dr. Parker without question. And if you’re looking for a great vet in this area, I hope you’ll consider her.

So, dear Cindy is gone. The house is so quiet, the hole is so huge. How will it ever be full again? I miss her so much.

The last thing I remember saying to Cindy before it was over was that heaven was a place where the squirrels were slow and tasted like beer. Charles got it even better. He really got it right. This is what he told her:

Well done, girl. Well done.