The Good News Amidst the Current Chaos

The order of the day is anxiety-bordering-on-fear. The stock market and LIBOR zig, zag, and sag. Banks fail. Layoffs multiply. Members of the House and Senate wrangle, argue, and dither, even as the president (who’s he? Oh, right. That guy from -- Texas, is it?) warns of doom (and no one listens to him because, um, what’s his name again?)

Good news. There’s an upside to this nightmare. In fact, there are two.

First, those lawmakers in Washington. You know: all those old white guys in suits and ties who seem to spend all their time jabbing fingers at each other but otherwise not getting much done? They ARE doing something. They’re doing the most important "something" of all: They’re operating the complicated, often ugly, and always machinery of a democratic republic.

That’s right: This is what a free society looks like when the mechanism is running full tilt. We the people elect representatives and dispatch them to spend their days making the laws and rules and regulations so that the rest of us can get on with our lives waiting tables, driving trucks, writing books, and making beer.

Are our constitutional and legislative mechanisms inefficient, messy, and slow? Definitely. Is the process perfect? Hell, no. Is it maddening? Yes.

Is there a speedier, more efficient, more streamlined alternative? Yes. It’s called "dictatorship." Dictators move fast because, ya know, they don’t have to consult anyone. They do they want regardless of what the citizens want.

Me? I don’t want to live in a dictatorship. So every time I hear another "breaking news" update about the often stalled, and even more often ridiculous, closed-door talks that don’t seem to be going anywhere, I ponder the alternative. And then I send a silent thanks to the people who are devoting their lives to making this democratic republic work, clunky though the machinery may be.

Okay, so what’s the second silver lining? The economy may teeter on the brink, but the presidential campaign continues.

That’s right: On November 4, we Americans will vote. We’ll engage in the first step toward a peaceful -- and legal -- transfer of power. And then round about noon on January 20, 2009, we’ll watch the second step unfold: The person we elected will take the oath of office and become our new president.

So what? you say. Ho hum. Big deal.

It is a big deal. It’s the biggest deal we Americans have (aside from the Constitution). Pick up a newspaper and read about the millions of other human beings experience transfers of power: Through bloodshed, intimidation, riots and shooting -- and with no elections at all.

So if your anxiety levels are soaring; if the market tanks on Monday; if Wachovia crashes on Tuesday -- take a minute to rejoice in our fundamentals. They’re what make us who we are. And they’ll get us through this crisis.

Bill Leinenkugel

Bill Leinenkugel died on September 23. As I noted a few weeks ago, he was one of those people who make a difference in the world: He was kind, unpretentious, and hard-working. A loving father and husband. A man who cared about his neighbors and community. I'm grateful I had the chance to interview him for the book -- and sad that I never got to meet him in person.

His hometown newspaper's obituary is here. As far as I'm concerned, it's the one that matters most.

But oh! -- how delighted he would have been to learn that his life and work mattered enough to warrant notice on the AP wire service, in the "big city" Chicago papers, and on the internet.

Tonight, I honor the life of a human being who lived a good life -- and leaves the most valuable of legacies: love, generosity, and kindness.

Asking The Wrong Question About Laundry, Cooking, and The Vice-Presidency

There is something supremely odd and depressing about the discussion of Sarah Palin's ability to serve as governor or VP and serve as a mother.

Odd and depressing because the question is irrelevant and, sadly, rooted in sexist, but taken-for-granted, assumptions.

Palin's ability to do both jobs has nothing to do with her gender -- and everything to do with her access to help. When people ask "can she do both jobs?" what they're really asking is "can she be governor or VP AND fix dinner, do the laundry, dress the kids, buy the groceries, etc." Because, ya know, that's what women do.

When it's put that bluntly, the issue becomes, well, a non-issue. I mean, no one wants to admit that they're assuming that of course women do the household work.

But I understand why people are asking a dumb question: In most families, women who work outside the home are also the ones who are managing the kids, groceries, laundry, etc. And it is difficult. (*1)

In fact, I don't know how most working women manage. I don't have kids; my household consists of myself and my husband, and I devote an insane amount of time to the daily routine of laundry, buying groceries, running errands, cooking, etc. (*2) How women with three or four kids and a job cope is beyond me.

But back to Sarah Palin. Of course she can do BOTH jobs. She can be an average working mom. AND governor or vice-president.

But she's NOT an average American mom. She not DOING both jobs. She doesn't do laundry or housecleaning. She doesn't race home from the office to fix dinner (running six errands between home and office.) She's got a staff who does it for her. (And, apparently, a househusband, too. I gather her husband doesn't work outside the home anymore. He's the "wife.") (*3)

So the whole question of "can she do both jobs?" is a non-starter and a distraction. Give any woman in the world full-time help with housekeeping and childcare, and any woman in the world can be both a mother and a vice-president.

And for those who are interested, no, I don't plan to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. I would, however, love to vote for some common sense and rational debate.

___________________________

*1: Yes, I'm aware she has a five-month-old baby. But again, that's not an issue for people who have hired help. I have no idea how Palin is feeding the baby, and don't much care, but it's obvious that someone other than her is taking care of the baby. When it's feeding time, that someone makes sure the baby gets fed. Palin herself doesn't have to mess with the details (and yes, if she's breast-feeding, she needs maybe some privacy, but that's not of a problem. All she has to do is step out of the room.)

*2: Lest you think my husband and I live in some man-woman 1950s twilight zone: We don't. He makes more money than I do -- LOTS more. I couldn't possibly live on what I make as a writer (almost no writers can). His paycheck makes it possible for me to spend all my time writing instead of, say, working as a professor and writing. So I use my labor to compensate for the money that I don't bring in. Make sense?

*3: Moreover, her family doesn't live in the governor's mansion. They live in Wasilla, which is about 500 miles from the state capital. That, I gather, is a point of contention in Alaska: apparently Palin spends most nights in Wasilla, and charges the taxpayers for her travel expenses back and forth. But again, it's a safe bet she's not running home for the airport to fix dinner.

I Love Having The Last Word

And I got it. I hasten to add that as many baby boomers know, it's a paraphrase of a hippie-maxim from the 1970s (and for all I know, there's some other version that's even older):

Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.

I first heard it c. 1974 (give or take a year or two) while sitting in an apartment in Iowa City smoking a joint. No surprise, under those circumstances, it struck me as the most profound thing anyone had ever said.

Drinking, Community, Beer -- and Other Stuff

In my previous post, I used one of Rick Sellers's blog entries as a jumping off point for a comment on the dilemmas of living "light."

There are now some good coments at Rick's original entry. Jeff Alworth weighed in at Beervana, and Peter Hoey of Sacramento Brewing Company commented at his blog, too.

Me? I'm still thinking about the issues raised. As I've said before, "consumption," whether of beer, clothes, whatever, is much on my mind these days. Sidenote to a point raised in comments at the other blogs: I spent fifteen years waiting tables. It wasn't a side job. It WAS my job. So the matter of the tip factors into my decisions about going out to eat or drink.

(Although, ahem, because I spent so many years waiting tables, I also believe that tips are earned. A food server's sense of entitlement goes nowhere fast with me....)

Detour From Beer: The Complexity of Living "Light."

Rick Sellers, part of the crew at Pacific Brew News, has a blog entry worth reading this morning. (Okay, they're always worth reading, but this particular one grabbed my attention.) You can read his entry here.

The issue he raises has larger implications for daily life as we figure out how to scale back our expectations (and our gas consumption).

If I stop going to restaurants, for example, I save money and gasoline. That's good for the environment and for my bank account. But it hurts the people who own restaurants here in town, many of whom I've become friends with over the years. It hurts their employees too, and not just because they earn less money in tips. If everyone stays home to eat, restaurant owners will have to lay off some of their employees.

The same dilemma holds true for shopping, going on vacations, reading newspapers, etc.

Let's look at clothing, for example. Sales are up at consignment and "used" clothing stores because shoppers are buying used rather than new clothing. They're trying to save money and live environmentally by "recycling."

But -- if we all do that, what happens to the people who work in the clothing industry and in department stores? Yes, many of clothes we wear are made in China or Viet Nam and people there are already feeling the crunch. Factories are closing; people are losing their jobs.

If we practice environmentalism by growing and canning our own food, what happens to the people who work for food producers, from the migrant workers out in the fields to the people operating the canning lines at Hunt's and Del Monte?

I'm not really going anywhere with this, except to point out, as Rick did, that living an ecologically correct life and trying to save money (yes, those are two different things) have implications that ripple out into the world around us.

Some decisions are easier, thank god: I don't see a downside to drinking local beer. That keeps owners and workers at local breweries busy and helps all of us reduce our carbon footprint (because the beer doesn't travel as far). But -- most daily decisions aren't so cut-and-dried. Something to ponder while you sip that next (local) beer.