Pocket Full of Words

Politics, guns, religion - best to stay clear of those. The following is imho, ymmv:

I wouldn’t hold my breath for an apology - the person who claimed to be a long term supporter that threw away your books is too entrenched in his own opinion to reflect on things.

It definitely ranks up there with book burning in my opinion as well. Quite frankly, I am a bit shocked that anyone of your audience, which for the most part should be long out of puberty (Ruby Key notwithstanding), would throw a tantrum like that.

Even if you were guilty of anything, how can an adult think that “I am your #1 fan, but now I am going to throw away all of your books, unless you change your opinions to match mine” is an acceptable position to hold?

Anyway, don’t let the negative voices get to you.

Holly, I want to apologize for not writing to support you in the midst of the attack you received yesterday.

You and I probably disagree greatly on some issues of politics, religion, etc. But the fact that we can publicly disagree with each other and with our government is what has kept this country strong for over two centuries. The day that freedom is taken, along with many of the other freedoms that have already been compromised, is the day our constitution dies.

To “the book burner” - if I vowed to destroy every book, movie, CD that was produced by someone I disagreed with, I would be left to play tiddly-winks with myself. And, honestly, I don’t find myself that entertaining for very long.

Holly, I’m sorry to hear that you have deleted the posts. I see you are already succumbing to the rhetoric.

I know you have to sell books, but your opinions, tour conflicts and your life experiences are what go into making your stories so real. Please don’t be bullied…not even by close friends.

I think it doesn’t bother people because most people don’t really look at things. The rest of us… well… I think most just don’t think we’d make a difference. Maybe that’s wrong, I dunno. I know I don’t like where my country is going, haven’t since 2002. But again, what can we do?

For the record, I don’t think you’re spreading misinformation. That’s silly. You never said he was a Muslim. You expressed concern at the article. Which last I checked was perfectly legal.

Heck, my MOM thought he was a Muslim, just because of his name. *shrug* Perception is everything in today’s society, and I don’t think you can take anyone at face value.

I’ve been saying for years now that anyone who WANTS to be president shouldn’t be :)

To rcyork: Dude, I didn’t delete the posts. They’re both still here. I have the courage of my convictions and faith in the process of logic I used to arrive at them.

(I may not have the common sense God gave rocks, since I am sticking to my ground here, but that’s another issue.)

But I’m not going to take them down. And thanks.

I suspect the unpatriotic charge stems from the ridiculous lapel flag pin issue and his negative stance regarding military action in Iraq.

Judging someone’s patriotism by whether or not they wear an American flag lapel pin is shallow and misguided — even in a political campaign.

Senator Obama’s view on the Iraq war is well-known. His approach to resolve the matter inexperienced and misguided indicating a failure to understand international politics. That’s not unpatriotic, but it is grounds for significant concern.

“I may not have the common sense God gave rocks, since I am sticking to my ground here.”

As you should. In the long run, I think this is the sensible position.

Someone who would throw away books and then has the cheek to suggest that you are responsible for their childish behaviour would have tossed your books on a whim anyway.

The rest of us appreciates people, who actually hold informed opinions and don’t topple at the first signs of trouble.

I think the campaign is entitled to correct false rumors of all kinds. The “Obama is unpatriotic” rumor comes in many guises, from ludicrous (flag pins) to outrageous (radical Islamist plant). I still don’t see why what they’re suggesting is so radical and scary.

I still don’t see why what they’re suggesting is so radical and scary.

Katherine, I suspect it’s because you are more willing to believe the government and those in power are benevolent (or at least benign) than I am.

You see a reasonable response to misinformation from any source, no matter its size or credibility. I see potential abuse of presidential power and a foothold for censorship and fascism.

Intentional misinformation and personal attacks come in a lot of forms. Presidents even more than private citizens need to be careful about how they choose to respond.

I guess I’m more concerned by the overtly facist past behavior of the current administration than by the hypothetically facist future behavior of a candidate with a long record as a civil libertarian. Until smacked down by the Supreme Court, the current administration claimed the right to imprison US citizens indefinitely, without charge, trial, or meaningful oversight. The candidate wants to debunk demonstrably false rumors. Big difference.

The current administration’s civil liberties record is abysmal. No argument there. I see the candidate’s choice here as a very negative step in the wrong direction, though.

The possibility exists that the news source, The Times, got it wrong. But the candidate and his people haven’t protested the presentation, and the news source hasn’t retracted, corrected or amended anything, and The Times is about as reputable as news sources get these days, so I have to think all those involved find the information acceptably close to the truth.

The candidate’s current record as a civil libertarian unfortunately involves his co-sponsoring a bill that creates a national fingerprint registry and could require the fingerprinting of all mortgage lenders—a serious anti-civil-liberties move.

Folks may not like one of my sources for this, but amazingly, the story didn’t get much coverage by major media outets (some sarcasm intended).

Holly,
All I can say is that you are awesome. I’m not an Obama supporter and I never was. The thing about Obama is that the vast majority of people I have seen support him (which has been college students, since I’m a Uni person myself) haven’t a clue what he actually stands for. They hold up their signs that say “hope” and “change”, but without knowing what any of that means. What kind of hope? What kind of change?
If electing Obama means we get one step closer to a totalitarian state, then I’m out. A national fingerprint registry is a huge step in that direction. The more I see what Obama stands for, the more I realize that he’s just another politician. There are no good candidates anymore. There isn’t a politician that represents my interests or the interests of the American people. We just have politicians, who will weasel their way into power to do whatever it is they think they can get away with. I won’t be voting for Obama. I can’t vote for him. As much as I don’t like McCain, I can’t bring myself to vote for a candidate who is just as bad. Obama is not our savior. He’s not going to bring this country around. He’s going to drive it into the ground, just like McCain, just like any other politician who has been running. America is about to make a horrible choice and it is going to pay for it.

This country is too divided and not smart enough to make a correct choice. A good choice would be a moderate, someone who can see both sides and make logical compromises, but such a person would never get voted in. The division between parties is too great. Both sides are too stubborn for their own good. We’re in for scary times, if these times aren’t scary enough as it is.

Thanks for posting this stuff, Holly. I appreciate it and keep it up. If people burn your books over it, just shake it off. That’s like free publicity anyway :P. Hope they ban it from public libraries, then you’re in for huge sales :P.

The sad thing about all of this is that I wanted to believe. I wanted to think Obama was a genuine chance for positive change, someone who could unify the country, someone who could be a breath of fresh air to overcome the dismal state of politics as usual.

I wanted him to be everything the hype said he was, and I actually let myself hope.

I should have known better.

As to the question, is it winning if most folks stay home, or if most folks are just voting against the other guy? Well, it’s winning for the person who gets the power.

It sure isn’t winning for the voters.

I think only about 1/3 of Americans actually vote, right? The thing that bothers me most about that is it’s not like there are only 300 people in the country…there are 300 million. That’s 200 million who don’t get up off their butts and vote. What’s even worse about that is you don’t even have to get off your butt anymore, except to put your blasted absentee ballot in the bloody mail. The amount of work that requires is negligible.

I actually was on the Clinton camp for a while, only because I liked the way she spoke and the way she presented herself as a strong Democratic front. Granted, I wasn’t going to vote for her based on that, but that’s why I liked her. I don’t like her politics much. She’s too liberal for me. That’s when I sort of fell off the Democrat wagon and I started liking McCain, and then he went and committed political suicide and started acting like Bush…I mean, I know people didn’t like McCain when he first started really proving to be a strong candidate. We all want out of the war, but he wasn’t offering an immediate solution, just a logical one (you can’t just waltz out and say “well, sorry we screwed up your country…have fun!” and expect the Iraqis to be all well and dandy). But now he’s just jumping right on the Bush train and driving straight into a concrete barricade. McCain still has a shot, contrary to what some might believe, but I think at this point we’re going to be left with a race to see who ends up looking worse than the other. Sadly, painting Obama as a Muslim would drastically change the way America views him. We’d like to think that isn’t true, but it is. A lot of Americans get a little shiver at the very idea of someone being Muslim. It’s a knee-jerk reaction to all the terrorism hype after 9/11. I know we hope that we’re all able to look past such a thing, but a lot of Americans can’t or won’t. That might explain Obama’s thought police concept, but it doesn’t excuse it.

Yeah…scary times ahead.

If he stops being a moron he can save his campaign. Anyone could have told him that banking on Bush-style politics was a bad idea.

I just put a long post about this on my own blog. Short version: I don’t think the article supports the conclusion you drew, and certainly not the inflammatory language you used. But it doesn’t support the more benign conclusion I drew, either, and so our respective responses say more about us than about what the campaign might actually have in mind.

Comments are still down on my blog due to spam, but if you’d like to email a response I’d be happy to post it.

FWIW, I want to thank you for directing us to the article in the first place. You offered an opinion, but gave us the opportunity to make our own.

I’m still bummed over Hillary’s loss. (And equaly as suprised that I have feeling about it.) I’d hoped for Obama to gain experience as a VP and give us a better picture of who he is in that time frame. Now, my vote (if I make one) will depend on each candidates VP choice, which is sad and scary.

Congrats to you Shawn! I’m so glad they overturned that stupid ban :). I’ve been hoping for it for a long while!

I do think it’s really interesting that there should be any concern over being called “Muslim”. It does send a mixed message: “I am not a Muslim” and “I don’t want you to think I am, because that could hurt my campaign”. Granted, I don’t doubt for a second that being referred to as a Muslim would damage his reputation. This country has a love/hate relationship with Muslim people and it would definitely earn him minus points with a lot of people, but perhaps his unspoken condemnation of being mixed with the Muslim people is an unspoken acknowledgment of its negativity.

*shiver* I hate politicians. This is why I’m studying to be a teacher…

I agree, that’s sort of what I was trying to say, but it does send a mixed message when someone who is portrayed as this open, hopeful, changing candidate is showing, even lightly, an aversion to being attributed to a particular group.

The unpatriotic crap is just stupid and anyone who takes it seriously is idiotic. Unpatriotic would be running around blowing up government buildings and lighting flags on fire and waving them over the graves of soldiers. Simply saying “I don’t like what the government is doing” is called Freedom of Speech, and if adhering to the very rules that founded this country, the rights that make this nation wonderful, is unpatriotic, then I must be the most unpatriotic person ever…cause I’m not going to shut up just because someone thinks I’m a terrorist for speaking my mind.

Yes, I agree, he is smart to be concerned, but he also has to be careful how he deals with it. By showing his concern he is also adding credibility to the idea that something is wrong with being Muslim, even if he doesn’t intend to do so.

My opinions on any sort of smearing is the same no matter the party. The fact that Democrats accused Republicans of fiddling with votes and intentionally disenfranchising voters who had names similar to criminals is just as disturbing as Democrats doing the same thing. All that that proves is that no party has the interests of the American people in mind, just their own. I’m absolutely sick of this divide between parties. It’s unnecessary and causes more damage that it purports to fix. And it pits regular people against each other, when we should be sitting down and discussing things like rational human beings. But I guess when politics gets into the mix rationality goes out the door.

Katherine,

If Obama’s campaign slogans include “Vote for Change” and “Change We Can Believe In,” he needs to PROVE he’s got the balls to fight the current and make those changes.

That means NOT worrying about what has been “the kiss of death” in the past or the consequences of smear-tactics.

It means NOT showing that like everyone else he has a knee-jerk reaction to being perceived as a member of one or more maligned groups.

Ignoring the words of liars (i.e. those passing the bad information along) is far easier than, say, uh running the country and fighting the uphill battle he’s chosen to take on.

Of course, since I can’t cast my vote for Senator Clinton, and lengthy torture couldn’t convince me to vote for a Republican who wants to rob me of what few rights I have, I will gladly vote for Obama.

:-)

I recommend “Don’t Think of an Elephant!” by George Lakoff, to find out how the Times article caused everyone here to conclude that Obama is for “thought police”.

Consider these words from the top of the article: “internet war room”; “crack team of cybernauts”; “internet war room” repeated from headline; “track and respond aggressively”. If that doesn’t say “thought police” without saying thought police - I don’t know what would.

What the article does not say is that Obama is setting up ‘thought police’. They didn’t have to, did they?

Just to correct another mis-conception: mortgage brokers used to all be mortgage bankers. All bankers, down to the tellers, are fingerprinted for background checks because of the obvious reasons, and have been since before I was twenty and applied at a bank (forty-one years ago). All mortgage brokers are NOT fingerprinted or background checked because they worked “outside” the banking industry - even though what they do is handle the largest financial asset of most people - their home equity. I was fingerprinted and background checked when I was a licensed real estate agent (in 1989) because real estate agents handle people’s money and assets in a position of fiduciary trust. Mortgage brokers are not fingerprinted, and unlike real estate agents and mortgage bankers, they do not have to pass a test or obtain a license to handle people’s money and major assets. When I was a mortgage broker (in 1994) I worked for a reputable company, but I despised the people, some of whom had criminal records, who crept into the industry and sucked innocent and trusting people into the kind of mortgages that are now causing wide-spread misery and foreclosures. I have no personal knowledge of Obama co-sponsoring a bill to fingerprint mortgage brokers but if he did so I would, from my personal knowledge and experience and as a homeowner, fully endorse him for doing so.

This is a forum for writers, and I must apologize for sucking up so much space on these issues, however, due to my personal knowledge of said issues, I could not allow the concerns expressed here to go unanswered.

In this election, the issue of patriotism is married at its root to the false notion that Obama is a Muslim, and that rumor needs to be addressed in an appropriate manner, by people concerned with stopping rumors before they defeat him like the ‘cowardly’ rumors defeated Kerry. That is not intimidation, it is common sense.

As writers, we all care deeply about words and meaning, and about the meaning of a collection of words, the ability to push ideas not explicitly stated in a story. We also care deeply about what people are saying about us as writers! In fact, I had a visit to my blog from a first time novelist of a science fiction book, after I gave her book a review (positive, in this case). She, like any caring novelist, searches the Internet regularly to see what is being said about her and her work.

Of course Obama cares about what people are saying about him in this, the Internet, America’s living room (and my living room, your living room and Holly’s living room - or office, or den, or whatever). If he didn’t know, and respond, to slurs, he would end up the same as Senator Kerry, who was horribly slandered in the last days of his campaign, as being a medal seeker, and a cowardly one at that - a scurrilous lie that was totally debunked by the men who served in his boat with him - but too late for his election.

Because of the concept that has been pushed out there by Time, I now find it necessary to state that I am employed by no one (sob) including Senator Obama or anyone representing him.

If you visit my blog, you will discover that I support Obama for President - and that is a new thing, as I didn’t have much of an opinion until after mid-February in this election. I did a lot of catch-up reading and watching of debates, and speeches, to come to a strong conclusion. I also haunted blogs for both Clinton and Obama. I will also say that I was for McCain in the 2000 primary.

Holly - you know where I’m coming from because by now you surely have read my last comment at the bottom of your original post of June 10th. For the rest of the participants here, I will say I’ve been out of the dialog on this site for sad personal reasons, barely able to keep up my blog and little other writing, for the past year and a half. I love Holly’s work, and will continue to read (and re-read) her novels regardless of her political opinions, because I agree with Senator Obama - you don’t throw someone under the bus who you respect and love just because they disagree with you or say something that hurts your feelings.

Thank you Holly for Talyn, and your entire backlist, and Hawkspar (which I have on pre-order). Be well, and keep on writing!

Glad I could give a giggle, cherylp! I second your recommend - to vote according the candidate’s platform.

Although if it mis-understood as sorely as the voting record and legislative agenda that has been cited in other comments, I lose hope for our democracy. I looked up the Durbin/Obama mortgage relief bill, and there was nothing there to scare anyone except the scammers who have caused the largest series of foreclosures since the Depression. They have reason to be afraid of Obama. The rest of us? Not so much.

My motto: when in doubt - go to the source!

Arconna, Shawn, I wish Obama could just ignore this kind of sludge, too.

But Kerry tried that, with the Swift Boaters. He lost.

You can’t change diddly until you win.

BookLover, I think my whole point has been that the article *doesn’t* say anything about “thought police,” and so the outrage in the original post just contributes to the rumor problem.

Monica—Or charismatic conservative ones, either. Both Ronald Reagan and Martin Luther King Jr. were Republican, and both were charismatic as hell. Reagan was simply lucky that he survived the assassination attempt made against him.

FWIW

Kerry was a failure for reasons that had less to do with ignoring smearing and more to do with his method of trying to make people like him. He couldn’t reach the voters he needed to. If smearing were a tactic that actually worked, then why did George Bush win two times in a row? Because the Internet buzz on him was not positive at all. Hell, how did he win the second time? There were documentaries about how horrible he was! Yet he still won and I don’t recall him having a little team of Internet buddies running around trying to douse the flames.

If Obama thinks the smearing is such a problem then he should be addressing them in a press conference, not by hiring people to protect his “good name” on the Internet. The wording doesn’t get me, it’s the intent. It will always cause a stir, regardless of wording. This is my problem with Obama in the first place. The way he speaks “inspires” and the use of such clever rhetoric (nice rhetoric with lots of hope and change and what not) has people in a stir about how awesome he his. Except, Obama has yet to show or tell us how he intends to give us hope and change and very few people have taken notice of that. Charisma and intelligence are not enough for me anymore. I want results from someone that knows what they are talking about…I don’t know that Obama knows what he is talking about…

Sorry, forgot to add… Obama *has* addressed the smears directly. Repeatedly.

What Katherine said. I have forty pages on Obama’s policies on Energy, Reforming Lobbying, Health Care, Education, Urban America, and Iraq. And that is just the beginning. I have his two books - a total of 817 pages. His Senatorial website covers his objectives for the Senate, and barackobama.com, his presidential election site, is constantly updated with his policy papers and news. I do not know anyone who has read all that and is still confused about what he stands for, but there’s an amazing number of people who are willing to claim he stands for nothing who have read none or little of it. I do not expect everyone to have the time and interest to read it all, but then I would expect them to consider all of people who know the issues and who know Obama who have endorsed him. When I can’t verify something myself, I’m willing to take the word of experts who can. If I sound a little irritated, it is because it is like the proverbial ‘nails on a blackboard’ to me when a candidate is ‘dammed with faint praise - or praised with faint damns’ over and over because someone is not willing to do their homework.

I think some Americans are going to be far more interested in stuff such as Wright (which is my worldview is not nearly as scary as some such as Hagee and Bill O’Reilly) rather than actual platforms and facts.

Obama is never going to win those types over. What he’s doing–making the info about himself and his platforms and opinions easily available on the web and concentrating on the Americans with some sense–it’s the smart thing to do.

What happens if some of that crazy stuff he tries to stop is actually the truth? We seem to be forgetting that Obama is a politician. Just because he’s Obama doesn’t exclude him from being everything that that name implies (the politician name, not his name).
So, would we be so open to the whole idea of his attempting to stifle discussion he doesn’t like if the stuff being said turned out to be true? What if Obama is a racist and an anti-American? What then? You might not want to believe that (or maybe you do, depending who you are), but if it’s true, shouldn’t that truth be out?
Holly jumped to a logical conclusion. The idea that a candidate can stifle discussion (right or wrong) or would try to stifle that discussion opens the door to potentially stifling all discussion that the government doesn’t want. Would we be having this discussion now if the government set up a team of folks to go around and make sure nobody talks about something Bush did or maybe to stop discussion about UFOs or whatever? Freedom of speech works both ways.

Arconna, it’s the “tries to stop” assertion I’m having a problem with here.

Responding to an assertion is not “trying to stop” someone from making the assertion.

You say the point of “Obama’s little group” is to “stop the discussion entirely.” Show evidence of that, because it’s certainly not in the article Holly originally linked. Responding is not stopping a discussion.

Let’s say a blog floats a rumor that Obama is unpatriotic - let’s say the classic now-debunked “he doesn’t hold his hand over his heart for the pledge” - then how exactly would you like the campaign to respond? Just be quiet and take the hit?

As writers and / or fans of writers, we know (or should know) what the impact of the words we choose to use will be.

You keep using the phrase “stifle discussion” without any actual facts to back up your assertion that Obama’s campaign is trying to do that. I can only conclude that you’ve already made up your mind.

“Stifle the discussion” does not mean the same thing as “respond to attacks and rumors.” That’s why they are different words. You know, words. :)

What exactly - specifically - are you afraid the Obama campaign is going to do? Send guys over to the houses of bloggers they don’t like and break their kneecaps?

Why do you think it’s scary for a national campaign to hire people to respond to political attacks? Can you name a political campaign that hasn’t done this exact same thing in our nation’s entire history?

It strikes me that what’s worked you up into a frenzy here is that Obama’s campaign recognizes how important the Internet has become as a medium of communication, and has hired an Internet-focused team.

In fact, by responding and engaging in a back-and-forth with bloggers (beyond whatever regular press they get in the mainstream media) I’d argue the campaign is actively promoting the ideals of free speech and more directly engaging with the voters than McCain (”what’s a computer?”) ever will be able to do.

The bloggers can respond in turn to Obama’s responses, if they feel that Obama’s campaign is lying about something. And then guess what - he can respond again in return, and the cycle begins again. That’s the way free speech works.

We don’t know each other at all, but I can guarantee that you will find no one more supportive and absolutist on the issue of free speech than I am. You and Holly are doing a poor job of convincing me that I should be scared of Obama.

If you’re going to bash the guy, bash him on the issues instead of painting some scary worst-case scenario that brands him as a fascist and a censor - when based on his record to date, and everything he’s ever stood for, that’s clearly and obviously not what he is.

Sorry, Holly. Not my intention to flame anyone. Reading back through the only thing I see in my post that edges close is the “frenzy” comment, and if that’s what’s bugging you, my apologies.

I’d be curious to hear what you think of the discussion we’re having here, though.

The scary part of this whole conversation is those who have already mentioned they may not vote this year, especially women.

If Alice Paul had thought “what’s the use?” would we women have been allowed access to voting polls today? Certainly much later than we were.

Voting is a right. Don’t give away that right just because your candidate’s platform doesn’t match yours in every detail.

I have every intention to vote, but if it comes down to flipping a coin, I’m just going to leave the Presidential part blank. It’s a long way off before either candidate can convince me they are right for the job. And the things I’m hearing about Obama do worry me (present information excluded) and if it turns out there is truth to the rumors I’ll be forced to vote against him…particularly issues of racism and a supposed tape of his wife screaming at the white person (or “whitey” as it is being said). I don’t know if it is a real video, but there’s a lot of talk about her and about Obama right now in that field…

Katherine: I agree with you to a point, but there is always a slippery slope and just because there isn’t evidence that he intends to do something that crosses the line doesn’t mean he won’t. Taking people in power on blind faith has led to far too many problems in the past. Maybe Obama means well by it and it was only a misuse of words, or maybe not. Either way, to question it is part of what makes this country great. In some countries we’d get our heads lobbed off for suggesting that something might not be right.
Until there’s a legitimate super good politician who does all the right things, there’s always room for skepticism :P

The campaign has stated that the “whitey” video does not exist. They’re at a disadvantage, in that it’s impossible to prove a negative. Still, I’m dismissing that one as a smear unless and until someone produces the video.

FWIW, the campaign’s response to many of the most common smears is at http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/