On September 18, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Justice Ginsberg was 87 years old and had been in ill health for some time, including no less than five bouts with cancer. Rather than retire to concentrate on her health, she remained on the court because of her commitment to gender equality; in particular, women’s rights. Before her death she dictated this statement to her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” 

On September 26, 2020, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed to Ginsberg’s seat on the Supreme Court. 

There are a lot of things that are unsettling about the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not the least among them the fact that Barrett’s perceived conservatism and a concern of her ability to separate her personal religious views from her duty as a judge is a slap in the face to Ginsburg’s unwavering stance for equality. To be accurate, that concern is an old bugaboo being raised from the dead: there are still people around who remember it’s being expressed about John F. Kennedy and possible conflict between his personal faith and his duty as President. Whether or not this is a valid concern, though, is not what this post is about. 

On March 16, 2016, seven months before the end of his second term in office, then-President Barak Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died the preceding month on February 13, 2016. Within the hour of Scalia’s death, the Senate Majority Leader declared his opinion that “(t)he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” and for 293 days the Senate refused to take action on the nomination, which expired January 3, 2017 with the end of the 114^th Congress. 

So, what I want to know is: where is the fairness for “(t)he American people” in this? Amy Coney Barrett should not be attacked because of her ideology, and certainly not because of her personal faith, but where is the fairness in announcing that confirmation of a justice will or will not be acted upon because of the president who made the nomination? Take a look at that timeline. The conservative, Republican party wastes no time in speaking up for what it wants, because, like always, they cling to that idea that they know best, that everyone wants the same thing they do. Well, thankfully, that’s not always the case now, and the rest of us have a chance to prove that in November. 

Resist. Dissent. Vote. 

I’m proud of the Democratic party. I was happy when Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic candidate: I like Joe Biden, because he’s a likable guy. That was almost his “role” in the Obama administration – if you don’t believe it, check out all the memes on facebook where Joe makes a joke, and Obama put his head into his hands (probably to hide his laughter). There are a lot of reasons I like Joe Biden, but that’s not what this is about. I was happy he was selected as the candidate precisely because of what makes him less than perfect for some other Democrats – he’s more of a moderate than a true left-wing liberal. 

The modern conservative Republican party looks, to many not belonging to that group, (I resisted the urge to say “gang”; there are many who are unruly, but at the heart the party is too organized to be called a gang) to be a party of fear. They appear fearful (mostly that someone is going to come and take away their “stuff”; also that there won’t be enough “stuff” to go around), and one of the things they fear MOST is the dreaded “LIBERAL.” (See Sean Hannity’s book Live Free or Die where he says in the introduction: “Progressivism…is intrinsically radical. Left to their own devices, they would move the country wholesale into socialism AND AUTHORITARIANISM. Americans cannot afford to let our guard down for one moment if we hope to pass on the blessings of liberty to our children.” If that’s not fearmongering, what is?) And I know some people who scorn the moderate path, who want to lean more to the left. Opponents of moderation have been very vocal in the past few years, chanting their belief that the problem with the Democratic party is that it’s not liberal enough. However, I respectfully disagree. 

I believe that most people I know, whether they be Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, are, in reality, moderates. I have friends “on both sides of the aisle,” so to speak, and I’ve found that most of them are, like me, moderate. The more conservative are usually one-issue-voters, and whatever that issue is, it’s probably on the Republican side, but in other areas it’s surprising how moderate (and even progressive, sometimes) their views are. The Republican party is full of rhetoric like Hannity’s, making “liberals” and “Democrats” seem like some sort of political vampires, but my experience with my more like-minded friends tells me that’s not true, either. Again, they’re more like me: moderate. Even in the various politically-inclined groups I have joined on facebook (not very many, since politics is such a downer these days, but enough, and insulated enough to provide me with a modicum of hope), most of the people who post are…well, moderate. So I’m proud of the Democratic party’s putting forward a moderate candidate. This election will turn on the number of cross-party voters that can be swung toward that moderation. However, we must be very careful. 

I already have friends who are stating publicly that they will vote Democratic, despite that one issue that has held them back for so long. This is not only heartening; it is a major coup. Perhaps if we can hold on to those moderate voters, we can take our country back from the fringes of the insanity and fear it’s gripped in, and put it back on the path to that brave new world that the founders of the United States expressed: where ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. BUT, we must be very careful. As party, and as people of that party, we MUST be careful to be welcoming and respectful to EVERYONE, otherwise, we’re no better than those we struggle against. I have heard a friend say that, even though she will vote Democratic, she still feels there’s no place in the Democratic party for her – because she’s pro-life. I have heard someone in one of those political facebook groups dismiss the concerns of a trans member, when that member pointed out a concern over non-inclusive language. I have heard many people disparage the new Supreme Court judge (let’s face it, she’s not just a nominee now, she’s going to be confirmed) because of her family. We can’t afford to let this continue. Not just because of the chance of losing this election (which is still a very real possibility, no matter what you think you see or what polls may tell you), but because it makes us no better than those sowing fear and division. As Michelle Obama so famously said, “When they go low, we go high.” Go high, my friends, and be strong. 

So, what do you think? 

(*Respectful discussion is encouraged; be prepared to support your position.) 

Today I watched the #LaunchAmerica NASA/SpaceX launch, the first launch from the U.S. since 2011. It was amazing, to say the least. The launch, which was scrubbed on Wednesday because of weather, proceeded smoothly, the craft was beautiful, the video, both from inside and OUTSIDE the capsule was incredible. I really felt that a new era had begun. One of the "co-hosts" on the "panel of experts calling pre-game," er, launch, was one of my very favorite astronauts, Leland Melvin. (If you don't know anything about this guy, you just need to look him up, he's awesome.) Some of the things that were included in the "show" gave me pause: but then, I'm old, and I remember NASA at the outset: all pretty and shiny, and in it for the good of the people of Earth, right? Well, Ok, not really, probably, but that's the way we felt when the Mercury and Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts launched and when John Glenn orbited the Earth and spacewalks were performed and when we landed on the moon. "We" being not just the good ol' USA, but the people of Earth. Today's launch coverage was somewhat uncomfortably like a football game, with expert commentators, and pre-game, and play-by-play commentary. Shortly after the launch I had to turn it off, because for some reason the reporters and the NASA officials started to sound like they were dissing Apollo and the start of space exploration, which, of course, got my hackles up. But I started to think about WHY they would do that, or why it would sound like that to me, and as it turns out, it's pretty complicated, so...hold on to your hats.

First, there are a lot of very disturbing things going on in the world right now, protests (very rightly so) in many cities: in fact, one going on in my city as I was watching the launch, so I had to ask myself, "Why am I sitting here rather than sitting out there with a sign?" My "friend" Leland Melvin answered that question for me after the launch, when he said something profound (paraphrase) "This is what we can do when we all come together." It's that phrase: "...when we all come together" that means so much. Bear with me for a minute while I explain: I don't remember if I caught space fever from science fiction or from NASA and the real space program, but I do remember that by the time of Star Trek and the Apollo missions, I had it bad, and for me, the real space program was just a means to an end that was shown in that SF show, Star Trek. The multi-cultural, even multi-planetary crew, exploring space together and relying on one another. Everyone has heard the story of how Nichelle Nichols was going to quit and Dr. Martin Luther King reminded her that she was part of something that had never been seen on TV before, and that she could be an inspiration. And you know what, she was. When you think about it, those were some dark times....one of the things that the commentators mentioned several times during the course of the broadcast today was that the Apollo program ended, but they never mentioned WHY it ended. The space program of the 60's and early 70's ended because it was a time of radical upheaval with racial tension rampant, and the PEOPLE of the nation couldn't justify spending money in space while there were so many problems here in their cities and their own backyards so they "scrubbed" the whole program. A couple of Apollo missions were jettisoned, and we started over with the Mir, Skylab, and the ISS, all of which were a huge leap forward. Once again, we were all coming together - in space. Sci fi has a long history of uniting the world, often because we've all got a new enemy: some alien, outer-space demons trying to take over. Is that what it's going to take? Are we doomed to try to kill each other until we're finally forced to unite because something comes from "out there" to kill us? I realized that I much prefer Gene Roddenberry's view of space: the world coming together, not to fight off some new threat, but in peace to explore and make new friends in the Universe. Maybe that's why I watched the launch today - because that view of peace and the future is all that is holding me together right now.

What do you think? #WhatDoYouThink?

...to be continued... 

Since I posted that I was dedicating my fb wall to crochet, love, pets, and food (and deleting political posts) I've gotten quite a few comments about "not giving up." So here's what I think: I'm doing this because I can't take the divisiveness and sometimes outright ugliness that I see related to political posts. I've had people I don't know start arguments on posts that I've made and I've even had people I do know who have gotten ugly about comments that have been made on my fb posts. I know others who are unfriending people right and left because of mean fb posts. Because of this, I'm deleting ALL political posts, not just the ones from any one side. As I also stated on fb, "That doesn't mean I don't think about things, though. Check my twitter feed @holley2001 to see what I think..." I will tweet about new blog postings, and those who care to read/follow are welcome to read, as well as, of course, discuss, since that's what this blog is all about.

I think that fb is lot like the dining area in one of those m/hotels that offers free breakfast. People go down to get their breakfast, they hang around and have conversations, and those conversations (and arguments) are going to be overheard. If you don't want to be overheard, you need to get your breakfast and go back to your room. That's what I'm doing here. This blog is like my room at the m/hotel. It's not MY space, but it's my rented space, and I can say what I want, and let in who I want, and that person/those people can say what s/he/they want. But be aware: you need to be prepared to back up what you say, or at least be called to think about it and examine your motivations, because this page is for discussion, dialogue, and debate, NOT RANTS. 

So get ready, because here we go. 

I saw a meme this morning that made me very sad. It read "Make no mistake, the #womensmarch does not represent all women." The reason that makes me sad is because IT DOES. 

In my last post I said "If you don't understand...you are part of the problem." The people who post this meme obviously don't understand - the women who marched were marching for ALL women: the ones who marched, the ones who didn't march, the ones couldn't march, the ones who didn't want to march. Because women's health legislation affects ALL women, whether they like it or not. Women's rights issues affect ALL women. Assaults on women's dignity affect ALL women, even if you don't feel it. Privilege is privilege, and if you don't feel privileged, that pretty much indicates that YOU ARE privileged, because if you're not, believe me, you DO feel that. So what I said earlier holds: educate yourself in this area, because NOTHING is given. EVERYTHING has to be fought for, and this is OUR fight. ALL of ours. If you don't believe that, take a good look at history. 

So what do you think?
 

Women's March Floods Washington, Sparking Rallies Worldwide

This is what happened all over the world today. I've seen a lot of comments about it, some for, some against, some loving, some hateful, and here's what I think: you don't have to hate anyone to stand up for what's right. You don't have to agree to understand. If you don't understand  why these women are doing this, then I'm sorry to have to tell you (because I'm pretty sure you're not going to want to hear this) YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

But you don't have to be. You may be brilliant in other ways, but you need to educate yourself on this. If you don't understand, ASK. If you ask, LISTEN with an open mind. Be part of the solution.

So what do you think?

OK, I'm feeling down, because the college I attended, where I also worked for 12 years, where my parents met, and my brother currently works, is closing its doors after 168 years. So, instead of doing homework, as I should be, I'm going to do something I really like and write a review of my favorite movie to make myself feel better.

The movie is Lawrence Kasden's Grand Canyon, starring Kevin Klein, Danny Glover, Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker, Alfre Woodard, and Steve Martin, and with a film score by James Newton Howard. I LOVE THIS FILM. I love what Kasden did in the film, I love what he says in the film, I love what he explores in the film, I love the cast, the performances, the cinematography...When I go to LA, it's one of my treats to find an area used as a scene in the film and know I'm there where it was shot. So what is it that makes me love this so? I know a lot of people may not agree with me, we're all different. And it's not the kind of film I usually love - nothing blows up, there are no zombies. It was made in 1991, so for a lot of people out there, it's an "old" film. But I hang on to it as my favorite. Why?

First of all, there's everything I mentioned: the cast, the performances, the cinematography, the soundtrack, all of them stellar. But I what I love most is what Kasden SAID in the film. The trailer for the film starts off with "In the 80's he gave us The Big Chill..." so you might think from that it was kind of a re-hash of the same theme. Well, yes and no. The Big Chill was written in the 80's and FOR the 80's: it was about a bunch of people who were already friends returning for a funeral and indulging in an orgy of introspection, which was entirely appropriate, it's a funeral, they're looking back at their own lives, and because that's what the 80's were (it was even called the "me" decade). So Kasden did a great job of turning the film in on itself at many levels and thus making it a mirror to reflect society. The score, which became wildly popular, was made up of poplar songs from the lives of the characters. A good film, but, obviously, and, as I commented, appropriately, self-centered. Grand Canyon, in contrast, is about a very disparate group of people brought together by....chance? fate? Well, now, there's the rub, isn't it. Rather than looking inward, as he did in The Big Chill in the 80's, Kasden is now looking outward, at society and, more than that, the world, the universe, the cosmos, at the forces that bring us together and weave the tapestry of our lives. The Greeks knew this tapestry: sometimes people come into our lives like a certain color comes into a pattern, and they stay there for a while to make up that pattern, and sometimes it's a permanent addition, and sometimes it drops out, because that's what's necessary to make up the pattern. And we don't weave this pattern ourselves, the Fates, or the cosmos, or societal forces, or whatever you want to name it, weaves if for us. We no more know what is coming up in the pattern than we know when the Fates will cut the thread and our end will come. It's all very new age - and very ancient - which is, SURPRISE!, another societal/cultural theme of the 90's. "It all seems so close together," Claire says, "the good and the bad, and everything." This is what happens when you explore and get to know your inner psyche (in the 80's), and then take a look around you and realize that your tapestry is just part of a enormous quilt of society, and the world, and the universe. And the "bad things" Claire referred to were "bad things" of the 90's, too. We look at the movie today and much of it seems tame. The bad and the good were indeed "close together," but take a look: it was easy in the movie to tell who was bad and who was good, wasn't it? In contrast to that, take a look at the 2004 Oscar winner for Best Film: Crash. Conceptually a lot like Grand Canyon, lives weaving in and out and touching at unexpected points, the violence is much more brutal, and there ARE no "good" or "bad" characters. A character you think is totally corrupt in one scene turns out to be a hero in the next. No one is all good or all bad. Welcome to waking up in the new millennium.

So all these films did a great job of reflecting their age. What makes me love Grand Canyon so much more than the other two? Its beauty, for one thing, and its hope, for another. And a particular truth that is expressed with great clarity at toward the end of the movie. The character, Mack, played by Kevin Klein, is talking to Davis, Steve Martin's character, who is a filmmaker. The exchange goes like this:
DAVIS: "Mack, you ever seen a movie called Sullivan's Travels?"
MACK: "No."
DAVIS: "It's a story about a man who loses his way. He's a filmmaker, like me, and he forgets for a moment just what he was set on earth to do. Fortunately he finds his way back. That can happen, Mack."

Shakespeare said it this way in Hamlet, Act I, scene III: "This above all: to thine ownself be true,And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

And Popeye said it this way: "I yam what I yam." But he got the next part wrong. That's not ALL that I am. I'm part of the universe, too - and it's a part of me.

So what do you think?

I went grocery shopping yesterday, and I realized that I'm one of those people. I bring my own bags, and not just bags, but a rolling cart for big items, and not just a rolling cart, but I also have a rolling, collapsible insulated hot/cold cooler. I get comments all the time about both of them: "Oh, that looks like such a great idea!" and "Where did you get your cart?" Curiously, though, I never see anyone who's actually bought one after I tell them where to get it. And I do my own checkout at the U-scan, even loading my own shopping card. And, yes, I'm smug about it. But I try to be cool, too. I try not to stand and sigh and roll my eyes when someone in front of me can't scan 2 items, or figure out how their debit card works. But yesterday I ran into something I just couldn't take.

I was at the pet store buying cat food that I really needed, because the bag is almost empty. I found my bag, got in line, and then realized that in front of me they had a big problem. It seems that the cashier had entered the wrong amount in the cash register when the customer had paid her. I realized this when I heard the cashier say "oh, you gave me a hundred, didn't you." She then proceeded to wave the bill around, hem and haw, and then ask the customer how much change she should get back. And the worst of it: the customer couldn't tell her anymore than she could figure it out. I walked from the front of the store to the back to put my cat food, that I needed, back on the shelf and left the store, because I just couldn't take it.

First of all: WHY do schools not teach their students how to count change any more? It's not hard to do. And if schools don't do it, why don't business establishments make sure employees know how to do it? I realize that cash registers display change automatically now, but what if the cash register is down? Or the wrong amount it entered (although that clearly never happens)? Or, seriously, what if some con artist comes up and tries to confuse the cashier? If they can't count the change back, they and the store are vulnerable immediately.

Second: if she couldn't hit the right button, and she couldn't count the change back, why couldn't she subtract and get the amount of change from the amount of the transaction? Are schools not teaching subtraction now, either? Or is all they're teaching how to use a calculator? No wonder students are crashing and burning in math and science.

And third: what's may be the saddest thing about this is that the customer, who wasn't a high school kid, but an adult, couldn't figure this out, either.

I don't know how long it took to resolve this, or how many managers had to get involved. I felt the phrase "just count the change back and let's get on with it" coming into my mouth and I left in a hurry. Without my cat food. And I'm afraid to go back. I'm almost afraid to go shopping again. Unless I can check myself out.

So what do you think?