I guess I qualify as a contrarian. Whenever I hear a list of the kinds of people who favor Senator Clinton for president, I can see that I qualify for those lists. I should be one of her strong supporters. So why do I favor Obama?
Supposedly he is favored by the college-educated, young people between 18 and 25 years old, cell phone users, and elite wine drinkers. I'm a woman, I'm old, I am working class without a college degree, I'm so-so about wine, and I hate cell phones. (I heard commentators say that Hillary is favored by the land-line people, and Obama by the cell-phoners.) Not only that, my father came from the Scranton area in Pennsylvania. And yet, if I were voting in Pennsylvania, I'd vote for Obama.
As far as the accusations of his being an elitist out of touch with ordinary people, that is just silly. No man born black and brought up by a white single mother from Kansas could ever forget his working-class roots. His intelligence, extraordinary abilities and likeability have made it possible for him to rise to the place that he is now - a viable presidential candidate.
I think that the terrible war in Iraq, the loss of respect for us in the world, and the economy decline during Bush's years in office give Obama's 'hope' and 'change' angles an appeal for me. I also like his intelligent, low-key way of talking. I like his views as he has expressed them in his books, and what I have heard of his speeches. Actually, his views seem to be close to Clinton's. Another plus for Obama in my view, is that I think that he will seek and pay attention to the advice of the best people he can find to be in his cabinet, and he is intelligent enough to sift out the best ideas. I do wish he had more administrative experience, as would be the case if he had been a governor. But wasm't that the case with other presidents? I think I'll read a book about past presidents before November. Hillary doesn't really have a lot of administrative experience either, no matter how close she has been to her husband Bill's time as governor of Arkansas and eight years as President. Still, being an insider so close to him must have taught her a lot. (No, don't say it!)
For me, the down side of Hillary is that I don't trust her. She has shown us that she will do or say almost anything to win. She is so focused on winning, that mud slinging is second nature to her. Of course that would help her a lot if she should become the Democratic candidate to face the current masters of sleazy politics, the Republicans. I know - the Democrats sometimes do the same in the, but I for one, hate important choices to sink to such lows. It implies that the American people as a whole aren't smart enough to pick a candidate on his good points, but maybe it's true.
So in the Pennsylvania primary, when Hillary has what is her last real chance to win her goal, it is going to be interesting. I don't think we have the best possible choices out of the original batch of contenders, but we have to live with that now. I suppose my arguments are too simplistic, but I have heard it said that a voter's choice ultimately, in the voting booth, is all about a their gut instinct. My gut likes Obama. So, while I hunker down behind this big oak tree, I hope you will tell me what your gut is telling you?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
Popular vote? the turnout expected in PA is 2.1 million. Unless she wins by 12, she won't crack into the 2.6 million (without Fl) or even the FL lead. It's not as important as they make it sound. It's all for the spin to the supers. It's been out of the voters' hands for a long time. Party insiders are deciding this thing, that is the natural vote. They are just using the people's vote so spin it or any other cases don't care at all (Kennedy, Kerry). No matter how you look at it it's over and superdelegates are picking the nominee.
How come McCain does not have the cohones to say it? Couple of weeks ago, he said the economy was fine, got a reaction, then backed off? Are we going to hear McCain say the economy has set records numbers for growth over the past 7 years?
I hope he says it!
(stepping up on the soapbox)
The nation has also set records for national deficits and trade deficits under Bush.
Part of which was due to his tax cuts...which artifically stimulated that growth. Maybe we would have been better off with less growth and some fiscal responsibility. Maybe the dollar would not be in the tank and oil prices would be lower if we were not flooding the world with dollars and raising tensions in the Middle East.
Don't try to spin it that the Bush presidency has been wonderful for the nation.
It has destroyied us militarily, economically and politically in the eyes of the world.
And THAT is why McCain is not running on the Bush record!
As for "Victory for America in the Middle East," that is not going to happen, even if McCain wins the election and starts his "hundred years" of occupation. That will just continue to bankrupt our nation and kill our kids who are trapped there, prisoners of "stop loss."
(stepping down off the soapbox)
I agree with most of what you say, Ruth. I am undecided between Clinton and Obama, but leaning toward him. But I do not understand it when you say you don't trust Clinton. That is a general feeling in the country, and it seems to me she is no less trustworthy than any of the rest of the politicians in this country. Is Obama leveling with us? Who knows?
The only guy who probably is telling it to us straight is McCain. Problem is, I am horrified by what he is saying about the War, about women's choice and about the Supreme Court.
Bert - Good points. There are good bad points about both candidates. Maybe I'm tired of the Clintons and the baggage she would bring with her. I do think she is careless about telling the truth and we have had enough of that already with the present administration.
Lynn, you're probably right, but I think Clinton's ego is too big to be the VP, and Obama has come too far through all the negatives she has thrown at him to be her VP. I heard someone say that if she loses this primary, she will run for governor of NY when she can. Then she could try for president another time. Time will tell.
If you don't vote, you can't complain about the result.
I am tired of Bush/Clinton/Bush, and now another Clinton. I don't remember Reagan, I was in elementary school when there a was Bush, then a Clinton, then a BUsh. Now you expect me to vote for another Clinton? Then what Jebb Bush? Hell no! I will vote for anybody but Clinton.
By the way good article. Saw her with KO. I can't believe a word she said. I already wrote an article about her "umbrella of deterrence." What a pathetically stupid policy. I am surprised the media did not jump all over it. KO brought it out, good job. She should be called out on that stupidity or maybe it's just pandering. To who?
The trouble with our current "method" of selecting the most powerful individual in the world is that it is all based on TV images. Is that how we should decide who leads our country? I have the awful feeling that the powers that run the media can select whatever they like to show us...or even make up stuff to suit their agenda.
My take on both Clinton and Obama is based on what I have observed about them in their roles in Congress...and in Clinton's case, considerably before that.
Still, it's not anywhere near enough. And the media isn't helping, concentrating on irrelevant stuff like what they said or didn't say or did years ago.
Okay, maybe that is relevant as a 'character' point, but it is NOT important in trying to figure out what a person will do in the White House.
I don't know what the answer is, but the information we are getting is mostly garbage...irrelevant, out of context sound bites, and superficial images of them so that we can see how beautiful they look on television.
This is NOT how we should pick our leader. Of that I am sure.
I do not agree that they are both "playing the same game". Not at all. Barack Obama has done everything he can to run a responsible, thoughtful, clean campaign. Unfortunately, he has had to spend much of his time countering inanity thrown at him. Even then, he counters with the truth, with more respect and diplomacy than I've seen in years.
If anyone is unable to find his positions, they aren't looking or listening.
I agree Sa dy K - I think Obama has tried very hard to take the high road. But if he didn't respond in kind, he would be accused of being a wimp, and no match for the Republican attack later. I think he has been wrong to counter attack in Hillary's style lately. It makes him look desperate. The media distorts things so badly. They just want sensation, and in seeking it and encouraging it, they drive down the whole political process toward the gutter.
Clinton has made too many choices that have padded her pocket. Sorry, I don't trust her either. She is inconsistent and deceitful.
Obama is going to be our next president.
Hopefully things will change.
I am opposed to dynasty politics. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is not good for the democratic party and it is not good for America.
Obama knows what the public wants, he's in touch with us rather than DC insiders. He's overcome great odds to get this far. He hasn't thrown his race hat in the ring at all because he never wanted it to be about that. He, nor his ancestors were dragged over here in the name of slavery, so my guess is that he understands black people but isn't plagued with the anger that some still have, mostly found in the elders. The main thing I like about him is that he won't cater to lobbyists, and maybe we can finally move away from that scenerio.
The problem, as I see it, is Rush Limbaugh and the dishonest Republicans who vote Hilary in the primary because that's who they want McCain to run against. It's no secret Bimbaugh and his Christian right are moving to dishonesty in order to swiftboat the Dem primary. But who is surprised, not me. This is how they play dirty politics. Watch the PA "T" belt, that's where you'll see the Republicans cheat-voting for Hilary.
The truth is that either one of them would be fine with me. In fact I would not be totally heartbroken if McCain won the election. I am just glad to be getting rid of Bush, and all those who talked about how Bush was going to suspend elections can all reflect back on that folly ... or soon will able to.
The reason I accept and like Obama as equal with Clinton is his common sense, and his abilty to foment a conversation in a non-divisive way. As Ruth pointed out Obama's "bitter" statements have a lot behind them. He is trying to get at some American realities we have been trained to ignore. The criticism that has come back his way has been ludicrous, and the attempts to make that last debate a circus makes me think America needs a whole new media system. That disgusted me.
I also liked that Obama could listen to, accept, and not dismiss, the comments from his friend the Reverend Wright. We all know people who talk like that, it is what makes American great. We need to be able to to accept people's opinions, especially those from someone who has a right to them, like that black ex-Marine. Or for that matter his association with the ex-Weather Underground member. We need a government who can be inclusive of people without pandering to them.
Often groups have such a focused interest they cannot be moderate about what they want. It is the government who needs to hear all voices and make reasonable decisions about what to do for everyone's benefit.
The biggest problem is just trying to look at all America's problems, prioritize them, and start to do something about them at a time when we are in crisis and have not really been reacting optimally for a long long time.
I don't know if our government can really do that, we seem to have a government that is best at doing nothing but make a lot of noise. It is about time Americans start to get serious and realize that it is not the govenrment that will save us, it is all of us, each other, like it or not, and some of us are going to have to acknowledge their responsibilities to the country instead of just being happy with their own greed.
I do rely on my cell phone for my work, enjoy drinking and writing about wine (and beer, too, by the way), and believe in lifelong learning, whether or not it includes a college degree (though I do have one myself). My parents, now in their 80s, were working-class educators, my Dad having spearheaded a vo-tech education program and adult training center after serving as a guidance counselor and geography teacher for many years, and my Mom working as a substitute teacher and college librarian while we were growing up. They, too, switched their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat in January so they could vote for Barack Obama today.
What an exciting day it is for all of us! With this election, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make our country live up to its highest ideals. Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to unite our country and restore our reputation in the world. I did not arrive at my decision lightly. After careful review of all the candidates, I am impressed most with:
*His respect for the U.S. Constitution
*His willingness to tell people what they don't want to hear, even if it's not politically expedient
*His own working-class background and upbringing by a single Mom
*His tenacity in overcoming obstacles to earn a Harvard education and law degree
*His proven experience helping poor and working class people on the streets of Chicago, when he could have earned a big salary practicing corporate law
*His leadership in the Illinois state legislature, and U.S. Senate
*His commitment to change politics as usual in Washington
*His refusal to take money from lobbyists or PACs
*His strength of conviction when it comes to ending the war responsibly and working to resolve humanitarian crises all over the world
*His position papers on health care, education, and the economy
*His respect for and regular communication with Al Gore on critical issues affecting our planet
*the caliber of people he has advising him
*his call to action for all Americans to join him in making our nation, and the world, a better place, knowing that as President he can't go it alone
Here's hoping my fellow Pennsylvanians agree!
I'm surprised there are so many favorable comments. I was expecting to be blasted by someone who still can't see that Bush did anything wrong.
Only a few hours now until we get an idea how the voting turns out today.
The spin masters are ready to be unleashed. The reality is no matter what happens tonight, the Obama movement will be stronger tomorrow than it is today.
All eyes in November!
Lisa I also love the list you made. I just don't get people who call him an empty vessel, I see his vision for America so clearly. I think others are blinded by who they think the other candidates are, but it stands to reason, to me, that if you want change, you don't re-elect the long standing oldies - you go with the new guy and take the chance. Is America so few on risk takers anymore? Our founders might cringe if they saw this moment in time. It's embarrassing.
And the first thing I heard on BBC was that today Bush got the lowest approval rating of any president since Gallup ever began analyzing anything.
And Clinton just plays the old games anew, by threatening to annihilate Iran should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the Muslim born-again version of a few US evangelists close to the White House) get any more serious about wanting to bomb Israel. Does she forget that annihilating Iran means causing tens of million who are innocent to suffer gruesomely... and of course a rather swift end to civilization as we know it. Have we not learned from Iraq and Bush, that saber rattling like that is a breath away from an unwinnable situation of horrific suffering on all sides. Idiots like Saddam and Mahmoud only get/got their international claim to fame inversely proportional to the negative way they were attacked. Ignore stupidity without naiveté, and encourage wisdom. All human beings can equally ascend or descend on that scale... and we really need to understand why old... even millennial aged... conflicts seem now to be coming to a head in the world. It is a natural unwinding of the evolutionary process, which some are calling a "perfect storm," but its outcome hangs almost entirely on the choices we make in the next few decades, or perhaps earlier, like in November.
Do not vote for Hillary. Which is a bit sad for me to say, as I have hoped a woman would soon become an American president.
Don't worry about Obama's ability to fight the Republican onslaught in November. Two words will clinch the Democratic win in November: Bush-McCain legacy
I am glad for the record numbers who are stepping up to vote.
It is fun to listen to the Bush Die-Hards vainly try to hypnotize us with how bush has been sooooo good for America. !!!!!!SAY NO TO DRUGS!!!!!!
But if Obama gets it, I think he should give us some clues about exactly how he proposes to achieve the changes we long for. I think he should be more specific in the fight against the Republicans. There will probably be a Democratic majority in congress to help get bills passed.
We can't afford that on this planet now, not with all the WMDs we have, along with an endless parade of more natural consequences from our history of human stupidity. "The Perfect Storm," some are now calling it.
The only way to resolve something like this is for the stronger party to take a more moral ground, extend a strong hand of understanding towards the idiot, pacify all the dangerous dominance displaying - for it does not resolve anything to self-destruct just to win an argument with an idiot - and go on with with a soft voice that carries a big stick.
That may feel rather empty in the gut, but we need to understand that our evolutionary capacity to manipulate our environments (including the social ones) to survive has brought us to a place where we don't need to continually be driven by those unconscious behavioral patterns from when we were jungle apes.
Actually, we need the intuitive grace of women to take more charge in all the features of human existence. Women actually have over a thousand more codes in their genome than men, and this endows them biologically with that intuitive capacity to better understand what life is all about. A woman's brain has far more synaptic connections than a male brain due to this. Thus far, most women in the western world that have managed to rise to any competitive level of leadership do so by imitating the male alpha drive, and that's unfortunate.
Women do not have more synapses than men, and in any case the natural distribution makes it irrelevant. I am not against women I just think this is not about women, it is about systems, and putting women in charge of good parts of the world do not change the bad parts where they are enslaved.
That is what this war on terror is all about at the root ... fighting corrupt systems. Yes, there is not such thing as an uncorrupt or incorruptable system, but the West is close enough to separate church and state, and theorectically give equal rights to men and women.
Sorry, but there is not other way to disinfect this evil system but force. It would be nice if there were, and it would nice if we were better at applying the force, but this is not just a cock-fight, this is reality.
There is an interesting movie that just came out here, a semi-comedy called "Where On Earth Is Osama bin Laden". The one part that really chills me is the almost anti-human system that is shown in Saudi Arabia. The narrator arranges an interview with two high school boys, and asks them about the world. They are being monitored by the Saudi Police. They are afraid to say anything, and when they are asked about what they are taught about Israel the police end the interview and throw the crew out of the country. This is a sick inhuman system that deserves to have force used against it.
But one of my areas of academic expertise is neuroscience, and women do have a more dense synaptic structure than men due to that X-chromosome, which also helps protect them from schizophrenia.
Most of this research sits as research PDF or books I have, but here are a couple of links for you... which can also lead you to other research into the matter.
Abstract 1
European Journal of Neuroscience
Psychology Today
When you fight evil it actually sets evil into motion and gives it greater power than it had previously. Look at what happened with the great Communist evil we were told of in South East Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. We lost so many Americans and countless Vietnamese and destroyed a huge ecosystem in that, and lost the war to boot. Who was evil in that war?
Evil is relative as long as it is the human ego which judges it to be that.
> only serve to further entrench the issues.
Yeah, I agree, I just think there may be no other choice, and in
any case, we are mortal, and will die before things get really
bad, or any better, so I'm thinking of the future.
This "virtual" idea of what the world is is as outdated as linear
thinking. The problem is that to think so "well" one has to have
a culture that promotes that. There is no way to get there, and
there may be no time to ever get there unless some eggs are
broken.
I know that sounds bad, it is the dilemma of the real universe,
it is bad, and it doesn't give a damn, what matters is results
looking back, and you do not get to look back if you're dead.
The Vietnam was was something I never supported, and I would
still not now how to characterize it? It is what humans have
done too much of, but it is not like we can escape this.
Look how we have lived this Liberal idea for many years, and it
has gotten us into a dependency on oil and labor worse than
drug addiction. Whatever we do will end up like this sooner
or later. It is us, and it is nature or the universe.
Bent - Pretty deep thinking. There seems to be a negative to every positive. If there is good, there is evil. There are so many wonderful things on this earth, but we have to live with the fact that some species live on other species, and some humans always seem to be seeking power and riches and will do anything to get them.
Bruce - I think our dependency on oil is the direct result of efforts of the automotive and oil industries to destroy other forms of transportation. They bought up and destroyed inner city trolleys, chose petroleum fueled vehicles over much safer electric cars not long after they were invented, and banished later improvements that would have been big advances in automobiles, all for greed and power. Now we have a back seat in the automotive industry that once we dominated, as the industry has been globalized.
One of the only big things that will defeat a Democrat is the pragmatic outlook of many Americans, right or wrong, that we will face a showdown in the Middle East and we must be able to come out of it in a better position, or we will be in worse than a depression for the next 50 years.
We got off track but even now I do not think most people want to give up their cars. I would be majorly happy with a pluggable hybrid electric car.
When you look at the US I cannot help but thing there is a class of bloodsucking leaches that really "taxes" us, and then blames the government for our anemic performance in the last 30 years.
Look at the majhor industries i nthe US, and how they have attacked everything social. Labor Unions, regulation, taxes, we have seen a sickening trend in the movies and popular culture, and total violence in our national minds.
The American peoplve have to be the ones to say no to this crap finally and see it for what it is, an attempt to enslave them and turn them into slugs.
Anyways, I respect your viewpoint, and that is a rare thing for me to say regarding what you wrote. I've come to know what's behind your words and see a lot of wisdom there. But I absolutely do not agree with you on this point. It is far far too dangerous in today's world.
But what is scariest of all, which so very few people know scientifically is, that even a regional nuclear war would likely also destroy the world, since the radioactive soot plumes would now destroy the ozone layer that protects us from the sun's UV radiation.
I've read several scientific reports of what would happen were we to engage in a regional nuclear altercation. We would not survive it.
So, what's your solution to avoiding nuclear war? Attacking or obliterating Iran does not necessarily mean using nuclear weapons.
Based upon my limited past reactions with both of them here on Gather threads, I see Bent as having a very "spiritual" (esoteric) base that subjectively (intuitively) modifies his rationality into a consideration of a much larger perspective that involves all of humanity on this planet. A concept that sees our deeper inner truths and longings as a people, very much alike and spiritually interconnected ... we are all one in that greater reality and there is a God of some sort that loosely encloses us all ... my perception of his view, and naturally I concur with it.
Bruce on the other hand "seems" to be much more objective and pragmatic of a purely logical way of looking at the world's past history of cause and effect ... something that cannot be denied, cause and effect.
Where if one sees a problem, it requires analyzation, followed by a determination of how it should be solved ... in the case of national differences where it is felt that one side is a threat to the life of the other, the world concept has too often been one of settling it first by threats and intimidation ... and if that fails, physical action ... sometimes war.
Our nation has become extremely powerful over the years of that leadership that has used such thinking to amass huge stockpiles of weapon system fire-power and the means to deliver it anywhere on earth ... even desiring to use outer space to do so ... such a system has really been built upon our allowing it, via becoming fearful of the threats pointed out to us constantly by our leadership ... and that leadership being actually very affected by the wealth (massive wealth beyond our ability to realize) of the "Military Industrial Complex" that has come to dominate this nation ... built upon the fears of the people, and the greed, along with desires to control the world by the major investors ... the latter getting ever more wealthy and powerful and the former (we the people) suffering with our lives paying for it all ...
It is always such "leadership" that is able to protect themselves from any "fall-out" based upon their wealth and "connections" with "like thinkers" ... if we did go to war and it became nuclear, IF (a big if) any were to survive, it would be them ... at least SO THEY THINK !
So let me get right down to it, I know bruce likes to NOT go here/there, and "that" is where his "debate" falls apart in my view ... there IS a Spiritual component to everything that takes place in and on this entire world ! The "God" (a panentheistic concept of one, NOT anthropomorphic) IS and always has been very much involved in everything that we do here ...
Such a God lets us have free will to learn our "lessons" using the Golden Rule that Karmically results in Cause and Effects maintaining a balance ... where there is strict accounting throughout eternity and thus there ARE NO ACCIDENTS in the "greater picture" of time/eternity. There WILL be other lifetimes and spiritual experiences for this to be learned ... like creates like and what goes around comes around ... make war and you get war back ...
For anybody that has thought at all beyond physical objectivity of a singular life and it's death ... they will naturally consider the question of what comes next ...
I posit that what comes next is up to each of us on a personal level and the social level from what we do as a group ... we are in a critical time of our history where we have the opportunity to either destroy all life forms here as we know them ... or to "wake-up" spiritually and begin to appreciate our natural diverse differences and come to cooperatively use them together in creating a synergy of win/wins for all ...
The old concept of dualistic thinking of win/lose (+/-) NEEDS rethinking, and replacement with the transcendent truth of there being a God with an active Spirit (=) right in the center of us and everything we do, a Trinity of (+=-), a "spherical" concept of INclusiveness ... rather than the old "linear" concept of extreme polarizations between so-called "good" and "evil," poles apart ...
We have the ability NOW to commit SUICIDE at any moment as a world species ... if we do not soon come to our INtuitive sense, we may well do so ... but then ... to each their own ... either we learn and advance or we fail to learn and self destruct ...
It is past time to begin to think in larger more encompassing terms less selfish ... our eternal futures depend upon it. (not to mention our immediate future) ... we do make our own realities ... it begins with the individual and then becomes co-creative out from there ... the choice is ours ... please think about it.
Someone starving or being attacked does not have the luxury of being able to appeal to spirituality.
The problem with much spirituality as you put it, is that it is based in all kinds of mental mischief. People who are comfortable and have all their needs met attempt to build a metaphysical view of the world to justify their outlook based on their subjective experiences and needs.
That is you. Almsot everything you have ever written is based on your weakenesses and fears, and supported by others right down to the people who have to fight your fights so you can criticize them for it.
I have such a stong and utter contempt for you because you suck of the resouces of a Westerner, and you pretend to something else. You could not exist without the reality framework that you profess to criticize and disdain.
Life is fleeting, it is an illusion, no one knows the truth, and as the Chinese philosopjers are fond of saying, he who does not know says, he who does know does not say. Because really, what is there to say. Anything important, really important is solved by actions, and commitment, not by blathering endless BS words and pretense.
Interesting where we always end up. Ruth here has written a very insightful article.
Bruce, IF I were still like "you", I would take offense about what you say about me and step up to the plate with you and call you out for a physical contest about the matter ... that "supposedly" solving all "problems", may the best (toughest and meanest) man WIN ... I used to be like that, and I seldom "lost" ... I have grown up, (matured) and no longer fearful about anything ... especially you and "your" terrorists ... so you can consider yourself lucky that one of us knows better now ... in your future you may yet learn. And meanwhile you had better hope that your world leaders know better ... Peace and love to you, j.
> about what you say about me and step up to the
> plate with you and call you out for a physical contest
> about the matter ...
Jerry, you are an idiot. I have never called anyone out
for a physical contest over an argument. So again the
basis of your argument is wrong, which is what I try
to point out again and again.
I used to try to talk to you, then I tried to explain to
you and you always come back with a version of
I used to be like you or I am uneducated or uneveloved,
but you never can prove it by anything I say, only
by how you interpret me, Jerry.
This is how I came to react to you the way I do. You
always want to take the price for being the smartest,
but you aslways want to award the prizew to yourself
Jerry ... that does not count.
It is yourself that is in fear of things and yet you claim that I am the one in fear and that it is I that am weak ... quite the contrary it would appear to me ... but, you still do not realize the real difference either and "that" is where we both differ, just like some others that I debate these things with, I have been where you are, strictly objective, now I value the subjective and can balance the two ... something you cannot because you only allow the one.
So all things said and done, we each speak from our own place, I tell it as I see it, and I suspect that you do also ... your take on much of what I say is just in error though. I can only suggest and if your ego gets it's panties in a twist that is your problem.
And if my ego's panties are my business why are there so many posts all over Gather there you are so concerned with them?
In return I'll give you some unsolicited advice to improve your posts. Be a listener and a reader for a few decades and think about what you hear - after a while you might have something to say.
How can you tell what direction is backwards when your head is ....?