The Zoo
by Nancy
My husband and I lace up our sneakers and spend Sunday mornings hiking the zoo. We do it for the exercise, mostly. It's much better than walking the mall with the AARP set (we'll get there eventually) or skipping around the high school track with the ladies in shiny warm-up suits yakking about the sale at Bed, Bath and Beyond. We're zoo members, so our admission is free, and the sidewalks are mostly uphill, so it's a good workout, plus the scenery's wonderfully entertaining. If you go early enough, the animals are perky and the people aren't obnoxious yet.
For a writer, there's lots to observe.
Like the crowd gathered around the tiger exhibit where three tigers (mom and two nearly grown cubs) were stalking a duck that had taken a liking to their pond. Watching the tigers plan and execute their attack was fascinating. (The duck was never in any real danger. When the tigers got too close, the duck flew to another spot on the pond.) What surprised us was how the crowd rooted for the tigers. Even two adorable, tow-headed todders were yelling, "Get him! Get him!"
Everybody wanted the duck to die.
Did we like the tigers better because they had cute faces? Because we could appreciate their desire for a snack? Their beautiful physical prowess? Because they were strong and the duck weak? Or did the crowd resent the duck's ability to fly? Or did we think the duck was taunting the tigers?
I had spent the previous day in airports where people watching is equally interesting. I think there are a lot of widgets being sold in America, because all the salesmen are quacking on their cell phones at terminal gates while simultaneously checking their email and stalking seat upgrades for their next flight.
Since I am working on a book that's too challenging (which means I spend a lot of time....well, wasting time) I decided to spend my travel hours reading newspapers and magazines and talking to strangers to finally get my brain around what's going on in Iraq. (Great article in The New Yorker, by the way. And thank you to Greg, who was on his way to Harrisburg wearing a uniform with an "airborne" shoulder patch.) I read the Iraq Study report when it first came out and now--after my weekend immersion in all things Iraq--I'm going to read it again. Have you read it yet? It's bipartisan, so nobody's going to get offended, I promise. Just read the first 5 pages, really.
The best conversation I had during the whole weekend was with the young man who drove the shuttle van from the Doubletree to the Tulsa airport. He was a former Marine who hasn't decided what to do now that he's out of the service, so he's driving the shuttle for a while. He told me about his tour in Somalia and other nearby countries. (He had read the Iraq Study Report, by the way.) About the war, he shook his head. "Mistakes are being made." And he listed them for me. For a guy who can't be 30 yet, he was very wise. Articulate, too. Nobody's mouthpiece.
I thought about what he said when I watched the tigers hunting down their elusive duck.
Are we the tigers? Or are we the duck everybody wants to watch be torn apart and eaten?
Anyway, this isn't supposed to be a political blog, so you can quit reading now if you're annoyed, because it's only going to get worse. If you're more interested in American Idol than world politics click away now.
I'm just a novelist and tend to think in elliptical ways, so what do I know? But my conclusion so far is that there's only one person who is smart enough, connected enough, experienced enough, open-minded enough, humbled often enough, yet gutsy enough to be the next Commander in Chief. Yes, there are other candidates who say stuff we'd rather hear, who are good with quips and are more appealing public speakers. They can get all warm and fuzzy for the cameras with babies and smart-mouthy college students and blue-haired ladies of all races and creeds. There are candidates who've made fewer mistakes, too--maybe because they haven't really done much at all.
We're polite here at TLC, so we've allowed just about everybody to express their beliefs until it gets offensive. But lately I've wondered if maybe our tolerance has given our readers the impression that we don't care about politics.
Well, we do.
"I will never, ever read another book by you as long as I live," emailed an outraged reader a few months back when she was offended by an oblique reference made my one of my fictional characters about the mother of a president. "You are too rich and arrogant." (I should have sent her a royalty statement. And if I can't get started on my current book, she'll be happy to know I'll never publish again.)
But novelists--even temporarily stumped ones--are allowed our right to free speech, too, and I'm exercising mine today. I'm not saying bad stuff about the other candidates. I'm only telling you why I like my candidate. Go ahead. Tell me what you think about yours. Today, for once, we'll allow a political discussion. But no name-calling. In fact, try to limit yourself to telling us why you think your cadidate ought to be the next president without bashing the other egomani---er, candidates, okay?
Me, I think Hillary's the candidate who can get us out of the mess we're in.
> She's served actively on the Armed Services Appropriations Committee and just received a thumbs-up from Wesley Clark for her work there.
> She's served the state of New York domestically by dealing with details as well as the big picture. (She was re-elected by a wide margin.) Her grasp of grass roots minutia deserves everyone's respect.
> She educated herself on health care as First Lady, but learned the hard lesson that she needs to listen to others and compromise in order to put her ideas into action. Her performance in the Senate has proved she has learned to work well with others. If you doubt her ability to make a considered change, read her autobiography, Living History. It's not exactly a page-turner, but the look into her soul will surprise you.
> She voted in favor of the war when we were all given the impression that weapons of mass destruction were at stake. But now I believe she's got by far the superior grasp of international politics and the support team (Madeleine Albright!) to enter into the kind of serious and educated diplomacy as urged in the Iraq Study Report. The Palestine/Israel stuff is so complicated, I think we need someone with her intelligence and determination to fathom it all.
> Yes, she has some issues in her personal life that some of us might find distasteful, but if she were a man, would our vote be swayed by this? I don't think so. Besides, her kid turned out great, and some of us feel that's the best measure of a life, right?
Lastly, I think we're leaving the era when people refuse to elect her because she's a smart woman. I used to think she wasn't electable, but now---after spending some time in the south and midwest--I think people are more open-minded than I first thought. Or maybe they've read The Iraq Study Report.
I'm not a politician or a lawyer, just a citizen--who--full disclosure--was once a Young Republican just like Senator Clinton--and I'm not interested in talking about Survivor or Dancing With the Stars anymore. I want Hillary Clinton to be my president.
Go ahead. Tell me who you like. Ducks or tigers? And if you have suggestions on where and how to start this damn book, I'm taking notes.












