Meditations

There are pictures, in my mind, of Buddhist monks. They're all peaceful, serene in their saffron robes. They have smooth and somehow ageless faces, and fearless eyes. Aha, this is what meditation gives you, I think. Or, more precisely, meditation is a peaceful process.

Actually, meditation is, in my experience, something like trying to lasso an elephant with dental floss. Eventually, over time, the elephant gets more tame, the dental floss gets thicker. I hope. But I notice that as I practice, it will go well for a while, and then it's as if my mind goes on a rampage, and all of these thoughts crowd in. The elephant rampages around, smashing against the walls, while I watch, and try to stay out of the way. Now, it's better than it was: I sort of recognize the signs of a restless elephant mind and just settle in: Here we go again. This might feel unpleasant for a while.

Pema Chodron talks about cultivating the tame mind. We've all gotten very good at feeding the crazy mind, encouraging it, strengthening it. To turn our attention from that, and start to feed the sane mind instead, is not, perhaps, the easiest thing you'll ever do. The crazy mind demands attention. It's hungry. It wants.

So the thing I've been thinking about, or noticing, recently, is that I thought that becoming aware of my thoughts meant that I would be peaceful all the time. This is, in a way, just another kind of trick--a really good one--of the crazy mind: that if you do everything just right, all pain will vanish. But the avoidance of pain is just the flip side of the pursuit of pleasure, and they both nudge you off the tightrope of attention and mindfulness.

The No-Win Woman

So I went to the Jefferson Jackson dinner here in Richmond, an annual Democratic event, at which both Hillary and Obama spoke. I came away with mixed responses. Here are a few of them.

• To my surprise, I'm starting to really feel some kind of empathy for Hillary. There have been a number of articles lately about the depressingly persistent double bind women are in. Hillary is smart--which is good--but really too smart--which is bad, because it means she can't be trusted. Who knows what devious Machiavellian manipulations she might be concocting in that suspiciously brilliant mind of hers? (Subtext: intelligent women can't be trusted.) She's a woman, which means she is probably going to be all weak and weepy about killing the brown people (subtext: one must not feel too much in order to be a good leader). She's actually too little of a woman, which means she's a lesbian (subtext: she's so cold, she'll actually castrate all men). Going into the general election, Hillary can't win. The Cons are united against her already, because they think she's a pinko commie feminazi who secretly controlled the White House while Bill was philandering and yet simultaneously isn't strong enough to be The Leader of The Free World. The left also think she's a ball-busting bitch (way to be progressive, there, lefties) who is cold and calculating (that is, she's a politician) and also way too much of a centrist. A general election with Hillary as the candidate would be one long national nightmare of the type that would shut the Onion down, because satire wouldn't even match it. We'd hear about Hillary's ankles. How she laughs too much, or too little. How she cries too little, or too much. How she's too controlling, but can't keep Bill under control. How she's had a facelift, or is too old looking. It makes me want to eat every Xanax in my medicine cabinet, just thinking about it (note to self: refill Xanax prescription).
• Obama is, no question, an outstanding orator. And I think he'll ultimately get the nomination. The crowd on Saturday responded politely to Hillary--who, after all, is actually a Democratic mainliner--everything she said in her speech was unobjectionable in terms of party orthodoxy. But Barack arrived--nicely timing it so that the crowd had to sit through some excruciatingly boring speeches, only to be rescued by him--and it turned into a rock concert. The girls next to me shrieked like it was the Beatles' last concert. Here's the thing, though. Barack and Hillary actually said basically the same exact thing, even referencing the same Great Moments in American History Brought to You By the Democratic Party. He just said it--better. I find myself beguiled by him, while distrusting my responses to him at the same time. I find it throughly annoying, as well, that no one has pointed out that Barack Obama is running on Dubya's 2000 strategy: lookit me! I'm a Washington outsider! I'm full of vision, and hope, and idealizm, and whatnot! C'mon people: "Change" is not actually a policy position. Voting for "Change" of any kind, whatever, we don't care, we're Americans, we don't wanna eat the same kind of cereal every day, change is always good, experience is overrated--that's what got us Dubya, and don't you forget it.
• This is probably apocryphal, but my Orange County Republican relatives are voting for Hillary. They prefer Hillary to McCain and to Obama. That's interesting. Does it mean anything in the larger world? Who knows. But it does suggest that, contrary to what the media is saying, at least some Republicans are willing to cross lines to vote for Hillary.
  
• I know everyone wants to hear about Hope, and Good Things, and Happy Horatio Alger Stories, and Puppies. I do, too. It has been a long 7 years and things have been grim indeed. And as far as casting my vote next November, I could do it now. I'm voting for the Democratic candidate. (Rant about McCain's toadying bullshit over the last 7 years to come in the next few weeks.) Still, as much as I like hearing about Hope and Change and other non-specifics, I'd also like to know that we have an actual, you know, plan for when we walk into the shitstorm next January. An umbrella, or at least a windbreaker, or maybe even an old Hefty garbage bag, whatever, but some kind of idea of what it's going to take, politically and otherwise, to patch up this battered, disreputable, remarkably-still-afloat Battleship America.