After breakfast at Pacific Whey Cafe this morning, I had the opportunity to settle in with my online LA Times and get caught up on some of the latest political news.  I had heard rumblings (via Facebook, a smidgeon of Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and an email from an anti-prop 8 group) that President Obama has been taking stances that are increasingly unpopular with the left wing of the Democratic Party.

First case in point has to do with a gay man, Dan Choi, formerly a member of the U.S. Military, who was dismissed from the service after outing himself on the Rachel Maddox show.  Rather than reverse or hold the decision by the military to oust Choi, Obama indicated (through White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs) that the best approach is for Congress to pass legislation making Don't Ask, Don't Tell as obsolete as it deserves to be.

Obama's critics on the left were frustrated by this position, seeing it as a reversal of his stance during the campaign.  I personally would prefer that he overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell by Presidential fiat...but there were a lot of fiats from the last guy in the White House that I didn't like so much.  So maybe Obama has a point about making the law of the land come from our legislators rather than our President's whim.

Second case in point, Obama's refusal to make all of the photos from Abu Ghraib public.  The criticism from the left here is that Obama promised a more transparent government.  Again, I can see that this may feel like more of the same old, same old--another cover up under the title of "in the interest of national security."  However, I also remember how inflammatory the pictures we've already seen were to the Arab world...and I don't think that releasing more such photos will assure that part of the world's citizenry of our good nature and intentions.

Last, but not least, Obama's decisions to modify Bush era Military Tribunal regulations rather than start from scratch with a new system.  He proposed 5 changes to the rules:

1.  Statements coerced by torture will not be admissable.

2.  Restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence, making it encumbent upon the prosecution to prove the worth of the evidence rather than the defense to disprove the worth of the evidence.

3.  Enhanced ability for the accused to choose their own legal representation.

4.  Protection of the basic rights of those who choose not to testify.

5.  Military Tribunal judges can establish the jurisdiction of their own courts (no idea what this last one means, but it's in the press release...even Gibbs couldn't edify us with what this last rule change accomplishes).

I lean more in line with the critics on this one.  When Bush first came up with the Tribunals, I was writing for The Signal in Santa Clarita and came out strongly against them as not worthy of a country where we are supposed to adhere to the rule of law; provide for fair and just trials; allow the accused to confront his accusers.

Gibbs defended Obama's decision as "in the best security interests of the people of the United States."  Unfortunately, Gibbs and Obama are following eight years of a guy who said, "Trust me, I've got this."  And then consistently dropped the ball all over the globe.  So when the new administration says, "Trust us, it's in your best interest," well, it sounds a bit hollow.

How much better it would have been for Gibbs to say, "Look, if we don't revise these rules and ask for a 120 day continuance for the 9 cases currently pending, we will have to let some folks go free that we strongly feel should be punished for their actions against our nation.  We would not be in this position if the prior administration hadn't made a policy of warehousing prisoners of war without due process.  We've reversed that policy and now we have to live up to our promise to keep America safe while upholding the rule of law."

Ah well.  Gibbs is learning, too.

As I ruminated over these three decisions, and especially over the emphasis by the White House Press Corps on Obama's seeming to go back on his campaign platform, I found myself thinking back over the Bush years.

And remembering that one of the things that I least liked about Bush II was his bullheadedness; his mulish refusal to change his opinion even in the face of hard facts.  So maybe, boys and girls on the left, it's not such a bad thing that we've got a President now who is willing to look at facts, situations and options...and change his mind.

I am working my way through the winners for Best Picture (as awarded by the Academy of Motion Pictures).  Yesterday's film was The Life of Emile Zola, and I was lightly mocked (and the film much maligned as boring) by my viewing companions.

I will admit that the film has the sort of schmaltzy feel (aided by the over the top score) of its era.  It was released in 1937, so some of the acting is what we'd describe as overwrought today.  The inital life of Zola is less interesting than his transformation at midlife to successful writer from starving artist.  The film really hits stride when Zola (played by Paul Muni) finds himself confronted with the choice between righting an injustice or resting in his comfortable status as a man of letters.

He chooses to fight injustice, championing a man unjustly convicted of treason (Captain Alfred Dreyfus played admirably by Joseph Schildkraut).  He does so at great cost to himself, his reputation and his wife.  Which makes the story that much more inspiring to me.

A few quotes from the movie may illuminate why I fell in love with this old sleeper:

"We of France, who gave the world liberty, shall we not now give it justice?"

"What matters the individual if the idea survives?"

"The world must be conquered, but not by force of arms.  But by ideas that liberate--then we can build it anew for the humble and the wretched."

"He had the simplicity of a great soul."

"He was a moment of the conscience of man."

That last one really gets me.  And the first one, too.  We've spent a lot of time, us Americans, telling the world in recent years how democracy can offer freedom, wealth and a way out of tyranny.  Where we've dropped the ball (with Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, for example) is in the realm of justice.  Justice cannot be found in courtrooms where the accused have been silenced or tortured, where they cannot have access to evidence given against them, where their advocates are unable to obtain detailed information about such evidence.

The Life of Emile Zola reminded me of that truth...and it plays, especially in the trial scene, perilously close to home.

I had an interesting talk last week with Hal (as Charlie was walking and running us), we had an interesting discussion about Carrie Prejean--the Miss California who was asked her opinion of gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant.

Here is her response: 

"Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land where you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and ... you know what, in my country and in my family, I think that I believe a marriage should be between a man and a woman--no offense to anybody out there--but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be, between a man and a woman.  Thank you.'

Since that answer, Carrie Prejean's fame has grown as she's been vilified by gay activists and sainted by the religious (and irreligious) right.  I agree with Hal that Carrie had a right to her opinion and to freely express her opinion on that stage.

Soon after she gave her answer, Celebrity blogger  and pageant judge, Perez Hilton went on camera and said she lost the title of Miss USA not because of her controversial answer but because she was a "dumb b*tch and a divisive personality rather than an uniting personality.  He also said, rather hubristically, that he was "the...moment" of the pageant.  Get over yourself, girlfriend.

Perez Hilton, by the way, is equally entitled to his opinion and to the free speech protections that Carrie Prejean holds so dear in every interview since.

I quibble with Perez Hilton's vlog about the answer and Carrie Prejean because he resorted to personal attacks rather than reasoned argument for the ways in which he took issue with Prejean's answer.

In a similar way, I have issues with Carrie Prejean's answer.  First she states, inaccurately, that it's great to live in a country where people can "choose" same sex marriage.  Very few people in very select parts of the country can make that choice.  So she overstates her initial attempt at an appeasement answer.

Then she stops herself and reverses course.  And I especially note the words, "in my country" that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  This is her genunine opinion and she has the right to voice it.  However, it sends chills up my spine because that's exactly the point...it's not just Carrie Prejean's country, it's my country and the country of my gay friends and relatives.

Various defenders have pointed out that she was representing California because the "majority" of Californian's voted for Proposition 8.  But they neglect to mention that it was a bare majority, not a landslide by any means.

In later interviews, a couple of other comments by Prejean really rankled me.  When asked her opinion of Perez, she said she would be "praying for him" and that he's obviously angry and hurt about something greater in his life.  And she knows this how?  She doesn't.  It's the typical "christian" answer that says see how pious I am, pitying this poor creature who is attacking me.

She also said instead of being politically correct, she chose to be biblically correct.  I'd love to sit down and talk with her about the 7 instances which could remotely be interpreted as being condemnations of homosexual activity.  And at the same time I wonder about a young woman who claims to adhere to biblical principals as a guide yet prior to this had stated, according to the LA Times, that her goal was to be a Victoria's Secret model and who surgically enhanced her bust size in order to do better in the contest.  While neither is directly addressed in the bible, there are more urgings of women to be modest in their dress than there are strictures supposedly against homosexual acts.

The lessons I hope we all can take away from this brouhaha are:

1.  People in the USA enjoy the right to free speech.

2.  If one disagrees with another's opinion, it's best to disagree with the opinion, form counterarguments, etc., than to attack the person (whether you do it by name calling as Hilton did or pseudo-piety as Prejean did).

3.  If you put yourself in the public eye, you'd best be better prepared to defend your opinion than saying "that's the way I was raised."  Otherwise, the arguments will keep on coming.

Such is my not so humble opinion.  Now off to yoga!

Several weeks ago, I got a gift from Tammy Knorr (twin sister of my sister-in-law, Cindy Morefield).  She had emailed me ahead of time to warn me that something odd was coming in the mail for me.  She called it her "dire visualization."

This is a photo of me at today's chemo infusion, holding the visualization tool.  Basically, it's a knitted representation of a tumor.  Inside, small balls of yarn feel like cancer cells.  You can pull on protruding strings, which I do a little each infusion, and reduce the size of the cells.  There are also red "veins" on the outside of the tumor that you can pluck off (mimicking the work of one of my chemo drugs, Avastin, that prevents tumors from growing by denying them the ability to form new blood vessels).

The nurses loved it.  I love it.  I do my regular visualizations and then I remove parts of the knitted tumor.  The red string around my wrist came off today and represents the blood vessels that are coming away from the tumors in my body.

One of the nurses shared with me today that few people actually do visualizations.  I admit that it felt a little hokey to me at first, but I also had a very bottom line thought about making it part of my "living with cancer" aresenal: how can it possibly hurt?  It relaxes me, it forces me to attend and listen to my body, it incorporates a sense of hope and control that feeds my soul.

So thank you, Tammy, for the dire visualization.

Oh, and thank you Pat for the prayer quilt.  I told you I use it at each chemo!

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on visualization.

Dan and I went to the Farmer's Market yesterday and among its many delights was a table piled high with the most beautiful and fragrant basil I've had in a long time.  (Caprese salad for lunch anyone?)  We enjoyed fresh vegetables from the market for both lunch and dinner.  Quite delightful.

Today, we rose early and Dan got a little golf in before his morning commute--joining me for the front 9 in the wee hours of the morning.  My normal "Golf on Monday, Chemo on Tuesday" partner, Renee' is in Hawaii at Hale Honu, so it was nice to have Dan along for a change.  The back nine was a lot of fun to play solo.  Lots of decisions to make when you're playing golf alone.  Do you play two balls for the practice? (Yes, I did.)  Do you really have to count all of the sand strokes if no one's around to see how many you took?  (Yes, I did...except for one where I was distracted.)  So I posted a 112...could have posted a 114 more legitimately...not my best round by far...but not my worst by an equal distance.

And I got to enjoy the birds, the scenery, the serenity of playing on my own and the joy of making a par on a tough par 5!

I spent the rest of the day cleaning up my in basket (yaay!) and now am about to join Chad for dinner.  I am both looking forward to my infusion tomorrow and also feeling a bit apprehensive as the neuropathy begins to approach the point where the doc recommends a vacation from that part of the arsenal.  But I've got my Ipod stocked up with new videos and a book I've been listening to on tape.  I've got my stack o magazines to take with and my prayer quilt.  And my angel-friend, Erik, on his way to shepherd me through this round.

Oh, and a lovely Laguna Niguel evening blessing me with a cool breeze.  Nice weekend plus one.  Thanks be.

Last year on this day, I posted about my five Moms.  I've not been a mother, so I don't know the lessons of motherhood.  But I do know the lessons of daughterhood and the life lessons imbued by these five incredible women:

Charlene: The mom who brought me into the world.  From her I learned a love of beauty, and not just the obviously beautiful but a way to find beauty in the undiscovered and unexpected places.

Pat:  My Dad's first wife.  She took us in on weekends to give Dad and Mom/Charlene a break.  From Pat, I learned an expansive definition of family and acceptance.

Dotty:  My beloved mother-in-law and Dan's great Mom.  From Dotty, I learned that personal fortitude has no limits and strength can be accompanied by tears.

Mildred:  My friend Shari's Mom and grandmother to our two godsons, Chad and Jeremy.  From Mildred I learned grace and not just grace in terms of personal graciousness, but grace in the giving of unconditional love.

Sally:  My step-Mom and Dad's beloved wife.  From Sally I have learned that a single individual can impact many lives in the ripples of love and humor that flow out from her, through our crazy quilt family, and into the lives of others.

Which leads me to the Sunday question:

What lessons have the mothers in your life brought to you? 

Today was waffle day at Chez Morefield, so we started the morning with whole grain waffles and some amazing blueberries from Trader Joe's.  After a fun morning together, we headed off to the OC Airport to pick Chad (our godson) up on his return from Vegas where he'd hooked up with his high school friend.

We had a nice lunch at Maggiano's where I was treated to lemon cookies and wished "Happy Mother's Day" based on the assumption, I suppose that Chad is my son.  (There were times where Shari would call him my son, but mostly when he was misbehaving and she wanted to give him away rather than kill him...<grin>)  Then we were off to see the national tour of Grease, in which his NY room mate/College chum, Bridie Carroll, is playing.

The production was a lot of fun.  I enjoyed Bridie's performance, of course.  She has a beautiful voice and a wonderful stage presence.  She and her partner for the show (Will Blum) have a great natural chemistry and were a joy to watch.  I hadn't expected to really enjoy the show, but found it to be quite fun since I am a long-time fan of the movie, all things 50's, Rizzo and a sucker for love stories.

My only quibble with the show, other than an early missed note by a principal who shall remain nameless, was Taylor Hicks as Teen Angel.  He dialed in his one number in the show (to deafening screams from the audience), missed timing deliberately on the closing number (I suppose to "make it his own"...if that's what he's doing, he should learn at the feet of Emily Padgett (Sandy) who managed to make all of the well known songs her own rather than a parody of Olivia Newton John by infusing them with her own interpretation of the notes and inflections).

And then, to my utter confusion, after the end of the show we got a "preview" of one of the songs from his new album.  Grease to adequate country western without warning can be quite jarring.  I'm sure it's in his contract, but the producers should reconsider having him do self-promotion after the close of the show.  Truly tacky.

However, as I said, I quite enjoyed the show overall and we loved having dinner with Bridie between shows.  We asked her to tell us stories about Chad and ended up instead regaling her with our stories of his growing up, the first time we saw him dance and said, "Oh my God, he can DANCE."  So many great memories.  Dinner at Pinot in Orange County was delicious and I indulged in a glass of cabernet...a rare treat these days.

We're home now and settling in to watch Slings and Arrows with Chad.  Lovely to have this time with our "son."  Lovely to be alive on such a gorgeous day filled with so many delights.

Dan and I were up with the birds this morning, on our way to play golf with Tom and Renee' Dobyns.  While neither of us burned up the course, Renee' had her best round to date and it was great fun to see her chip in on the 9th hole (if memory serves).

I had some great drives worth remembering, but my short game (other than the sand, where for some peculiar reason I did very well, very often) was off.  No worries.  I only got grumpy on the 17th hole where I put 3 balls in the water for my maximum 9x.  Grrr.  And I knew better, but chose the route to the green based on my imaginary game rather than the game I brought.

Dan and I had lunch at the club and then decided to sneak off and watch the new Star Trek movie.  Overall, (and forgive my fan-boy slavering) I loved it.  They did a great job with updating the franchise for a new generation while also giving us longtime Trekkies the nods we wanted (and deserve!).  The guys behind me said it was the best one yet.  Dan and I still vote for The Wrath of Khan as number 1.

It was more of an action film than a sci-fi film...and I did note, with a bit of sadness, that the original series' idealism and vision of the future as an adventure in discovery and peace (rather than mostly a battle) was missing from this more rough and tumble Star Trek world.  But Roddenberry was speaking to another generation at another time, with a medium that was high tech for the time but seems dated to this younger band of merry travellers.  I found the film riveting.  I will buy the DVD.  I'm glad I lived to see it, even, in a way that feels frankly spiritual to me.

And I am also nostalgic for the Original Trek sense of the world.  I know there are idealists out there in this new generation.  I'm related to quite a few of them.  I hope the future looks more like we projected in the 60's than the one we saw today...but that's going to be up to these new idealists.

OTOH, I love Aliens and Terminator...so I'm all for a good, well-developed action flick that respects the lore of the world it wants to inhabit.  Go see it if you like sci-fi, Trek in any form, or even if you just like Spock/Syler (from Heroes)/Zachary Quinto.

This coming Saturday is the annual "Stamp Out Hunger" Food Drive by the National Association of Letter Carriers.  In my former life as a volunteer for the Santa Clarita Valley Food Pantry, the food drive was one of our key sources of nonperishable goods for the year.

It's so easy to participate.  All you have to do is put a bag of nonperishable, non-glass items in a bag and leave it by your mailbox.  Your letter carrier will take it back to the Post Office and the food you donate will be distributed among local food pantries and food banks.

This is a nationwide drive, so it doesn't matter where you're reading my blog...you can donate.  (Unless you're one of my few overseas readers...then, I guess, you get a pass on this one.)

I've been in touch with folks at the Food Pantry in Santa Clarita.  Their story is the story of food banks and food pantries across the country:  their number of clients is up exponentially; they are feeding more people with fewer resources. 

Please join me in putting a bag of groceries out by your mailbox...let's do a little bit of "loaves and fishes" multiplication and help hungry children and adults through this time.

Thanks.

Just back from Yoga with my nephew/godson, Chad.  It was the gentle yoga class, so it wasn't too challenging for him...but I did hear a pop or two of his joints and a tremendous crack of his back during "Dead Bug" or "Happy Baby" pose (depending on your preference for descriptives).

It's been a lovely two days of getting energy back, celebrating my Mom's 75th birthday with a dinner and overnight here...and then welcoming Chad for a short visit tonight and a longer visit, including tickets to see Grease on Saturday, this weekend.

I've been doing some interesting reading in the short hiatus from blogging.  Newsweek really rocks, lately.  It's not just Fareed Zakaria, although I admit to a secret intellectual crush on him.  They are getting quality reporting on issues, providing balanced opinions and generally making me question my positions rather than merely supporting preconcieved notions.  Fine work, Newsweek.

For example, (and it's a small example), they have a quick little blurt on gaffes each week.  In covering the Miss California anti-gay-marriage response, they found that her expression of her own opinion and beliefs was more palatable than one celebrity's response.  (She cited her religious beliefs...would love to have an afternoon with her to educate her on just how little the bible has to say about homosexuality but that's another topic...the celebrity merely called her a b*tch.  Which is the more considered opinion?)

An unrelated article in the same issue (March 14th) talked about an art critic, David Hickey, during the 70's who came to the audacious conclusion that the principle transaction of art takes place between the viewer and the finished work...that museums, art dealers, setters of taste, they all get in the way of the pure response.  "I like that."  Or "I don't like that."

Of particular note on Hickey was his stand on Mapplethorpe (loved his art, especially the controversial stuff) and his stand on Jesse Helms who, in response to Mapplethorpe, gutted funding for the arts.  Hickey also supported Helms' right to his opinion...and to exercise whatever power he had to further that opinion, because freedom of opinion was the very thing his book, The Invisible Dragon, was about.  Imagine...integrity of opinions about the freedoms of folks with whom you disagree to disagree with you.

Now if only disgruntled righties would learn that lesson.  It was a hard, painful 8 year lesson for those of us on the left in the Bush years.  Yet for the most part, I feel I managed to attack the issues rather than the person, the ideas rather than the ideals of Bush.  From what I can see of the frothing right these days (libertarians included), it's all a bunch of noise.  Sort of like a piece of art with which you don't connect.