Sucking On Chinese Toys and a Humble Suggestion

I recently returned from three days at the Coachella Music Festival in Indio. Three days in the desert; music, musing and dancing in a herd of thousands. Body and mind are worn – as I write this, I feel like I’ve been sucking on Chinese toys all weekend. Still, live music for three days and nights straight invites the mind to wander down many a path. Some thoughts...

Thousands from around the state, the country and the world attended the festival. Most youthful, most liberal – but surprisingly few showing their political colors. A few Obama jerseys were spotted, never caught sight of any Hillary shwag - but as always, festival icons Leonard Peltier and Che Guevara were in full effect.  Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters sent a blood spattered dirigible pig floating over the crowd emblazoned with a sword wielding Uncle Sam Death Head, “Don’t Be Led To Slaughter” scrawled alongside. The pig’s underbelly was stamped with a disconcertingly hopeful message: a  ballot check marked next to Obama’s name. Not exactly the sort of endorsement that warms a politician’s heart – but still, a shout out from Roger Waters is a shout out from Roger Waters. Prince said he was so sick of debates – he couldn’t stand it anymore.  Hillary and Obama as the bickering parents in “This is What It Sounds Like When the Doves Cry”…

Gave a jump start to some Mexican kids in their twenties from Calexico – all studying to be lawyers. They shared their beer and we did the Spanglish thing for a while. We drank to Mexico and the U.S., neighbors and friends – they raised their beers, but were hesitant to really believe the friend part.  They wished it was so, but I had to agree that most of our national gestures appear to be those of a perturbed neighbor rather than a friend…

Read full article

What Would Albert Do?

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.” Albert Einstein

When I came across this well-known quote by Albert Einstein recently, it struck me that most of us pick our political candidates based on what we perceive as our “common sense.” My common sense, if Albert is right, was formed as the daughter of a fighter pilot during the 50’s and the 60’s. I was witness to the collateral damage inflicted on a military family by the wages of war. From Korea to Vietnam, my father’s career as a warrior was the central fact of our life and all else was secondary.

My early prejudices against war came about from my sense that anything that took my father from me was a bad thing. 

Many of my relatives grew up with their lives intact. Their fathers were home each night. They didn’t have to watch their stoic young mother wait by the phone for a call that often never came. They didn’t habitually watch the chaplain make his way down the street in front of the quarters, holding their breath to see which house he would approach with his sad but predictable news. Yet these are the very people who today are still supporting Bush’s war in Iraq. Were their prejudices the result of pain-free entitlement?

One has to ask how each of our candidates acquired their “common sense." All of them grew up in very different circumstances from one another, and all have had considerably different experiences as adults.  They are each the sum of where they came from and what they have done. As a voter I believe my job is to support the candidate that will have the sense to lead the United States away from our current imperialistic path and back to a constitutional democracy where the welfare of the people is placed ahead of corporate desire for global domination.

 -Citizen Voices blogger Candace Suerstedt is a filmmaker and a mother of three who lives in Coronado.

Spread-Eagleism

One of the most annoying aspects of talking to self-proclaimed conservatives is their relentless propensity to retreat to jingoism.

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy." It refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats of or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others. 

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate with someone who reverts to somewhat subjective concepts like "liberty" and "freedom" as the justification for everything.  Whose liberty?  Whose freedom?  Who and what exactly are they referring to? How is sending our children to fight for control of Iraq’s oil serving our freedom or liberty?   How free are returning soldiers going to be without arms or legs or frontal lobes?  How exactly will the presence of Blackwater serve our freedom? (One of the first requirements of a totalitarian government is the creation of a private army.)  And finally, how is illegal wiretapping serving our freedom?

It has long been my experience that the biggest hawks are often those who have sacrificed the least.  Growing up, as I did, on Naval Air Stations, I learned first hand, on a daily basis, the enormous price the "warrior class" pays so the rest of the country can have their "freedom."  And there is no question that there is a need for military might, and it’s good to be the strongest fighting force in the world if you are part of the country that has it.  But having that force does not give us the right to abuse it to fulfill any agenda held by the Bush regime.  We, as human beings, must have moral boundaries.  When do we stand behind our government and when do we stand behind our humanity and say,  "Stop the insanity." How many slaughtered children are we willing to sacrifice?

 - Candace Suerstedt is a filmmaker and a mother of three who lives in Coronado.

Still Hung Up on 2000

I'm conflicted about voting Democratic right now.

Ideally, Al Gore would be my choice, but only to say: "I wish the Supreme Court had not cast the deciding vote in the 2000 election."

In order to move on, I need to get over Al Gore's loss and the fact that everything changed afterwards. But I'm having a really hard time accepting how much we've changed.

I've gotten the impression Democrats would like to get back to normal, to a time before the invasion of Iraq. Normal is a time when Democrats focus on "blue" issues, like reinforcing public kindergarten through 12th grade education; expanding infrastructure, like bridges; improving job training; making college tuition affordable; encouraging unions; protecting Social Security and Medicare; and all the other issues Republicans hate us for. I like normalcy too, but not at the expense of dealing proactively with the reasons things have changed.

When the majority of Americans told their leaders they disapproved of the war in Iraq, for instance, why did the Democratic-led Congress instead focus on domestic policy? Granted, Republican opposition went a long way in getting nothing done. But we didn't always need a majority of votes when it came to holding the Bush administration accountable for repeatedly lying to the American people. And what about filibustering? That's one type of symbolism that actually means something politically yet Democrats in Congress refuse to use it for fear of appearing divisive.

The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan drains every American resource except war profiteering. Ending the occupation of Iraq enables vital resources to flow back into domestic issues, something that means a great deal to cash-strapped Americans.

Democrats have an opportunity in this election to reiterate what the party stands for. Do we stand for progress, or do we stand for conserving our traditional base?

- Citizen Voices blogger Alma Sove has spent most of her life in San Diego and is currently attending law school.