Subversive Soapbox

2010-02-06T21:10:04Z

The Tea Party has been getting a lot of press lately (mainly from Fox News) and it's becoming a bit disconcerting about whether or not the Tea Party is going to really shape the politics of America. Massachusetts aside, is the Tea Party really something to fear?

I don't think so. Yes, I think individuals who align themselves with a Tea Party have anger, which will carry them far. They are impatient and nostalgic for the Reagan Era. This will also help sustain momentum, for at least a little while. Not to mention they have Fox News propaganda helping them believe that Obama is the next Castro. Fear, anger, impatience and nostalgia help

However, there is no one Tea Party. There are a bunch and there is a lot of in fighting too among their different circles.

To give a very simple (and very loose analogy) organizing their political party platform is sort of like trying to order pizza for the office. One person always wants meat. Another is a vegetarian who doesn't like olives. A lone person wants pineapple. Of course, someone else always asks, "Why are we getting pizza? I vote that we get Mexican food instead." The conversation then turns into where to pizza from, in which every person has a different opinion about the 5 pizza places that deliver. An alliance is invariably dissolved upon the announcement of one person that they actually aren't even that hungry and maybe they'll just grab something later.

To make a better analogy, the Tea Party is crying for anarchy. They don't want politicians or leaders, and they don't want to answer to the government in any way and they want to overthrow mainstream media. They have no established leadership-- they proclaim themselves as a decentralized movement. In an interview with Katie Couric, you can see just how much they don't have a clue about what they really stand for. At one point, a tea party representative said that there are disagreements over which politicians they identify with (which, by the way, they consider Glenn Beck to be a politician), and that they embrace a variety of politicians. The interview ends with a circular answer to what social issues they stand for. They also admit that they don't have an actual platform with detailed policy plans. It's like they embrace the idea of, like, freedom and liberty and not being held down the Man.

Oh, how this reminds me of FoodNotBombs and holding up my hand to show a "C" for consensus. After 4 hours of heavy debate, we finally agreed to have a meeting the next week. I am not fearful of anarchist, consensus based and decentralized movements. I am fearful of those who can organize and lead effectively like Karl Rove.

Once the economy begins to turn around, progress is made on legislation, and as the midterm elections near, a good portion of tea partiers will begin to abandon the views they once embraced so closely. Similar to those (like me) who say that they will not vote Democrat in the midterm elections, come October, will really begin to question whether it worth the risk to not vote for the most reasonable (and likely to win) candidate.

So mainstream media, let's not make this bigger than it is-- it's a meme of political discourse/response-- but they are not a viable party.

An afterthought: I wanted to mention that the various tea parties are hypocritical. All tea parties claim they want individual liberty, but no one Tea Party has not embraced the idea of gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion rights or the abolition of the prisons. In addition, no Tea Party has addressed the areas where regulation or government control has become integral to our society, questioning whether some government control should possibly be maintained, such as: fire departments, public education and FDIC regulation of banks. Unlike the Libertarian Party which has given substantial thought to these issues to where they are fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, the tea parties seem to want, as Jon Stewart once said, "Want the sunshine without the heat and brightness."

Time to Take Down the Christian Coalition

2010-02-02T01:20:12Z

Hot off the presses: Georgia's Christian Coalition is opposing a bill that will help prostituted children. Yup, they are.

Their efforts are in response to a coalition of child advocacy groups in Georgia that are working to reform the State's response to juvenile offenders, which includes juveniles who have been arrested for prostituted. (Oh, and yes, juveniles (those under the age of consent) are arrested for prostitution when discovered by law enforcement that they are willing to trade sex for money, drugs, housing, etc.)

I'm hoping that the Left uses this to their advantage as much as possible. Let's Fox News this shit-- I want a headline that reads as follows: Christian Coalition Doesn't Care About Child Sex Victims.

Now I'm not a huge supporter of labeling prostituted youth as victims-- I'd rather think of them as survivors of the sex trade. However, I'm completely in support for knocking down the Right as much as possible. Let's face it: it's not like they play fair with the media. Let's use some their own sleaziness for our advantage, shall we?

2010-02-01T05:48:35Z

I haven't been this fired up since I wrote about the Nelson-Hatch amendment! No, it's not about how the Democrats have failed again (though they still are-- vote Green!)-- this time it's a greater feminist battle: the discussion about a woman's social role and gain.

Lori Gottlieb wrote this article in 2008, which advised that women should settle and just get married. Yes, you heard me right, settle. Not only should you settle, but you should do it early when at least you can get a kid out of it. Rightly, there many responses to her article, such as here and here and here.

But Lori Gottlieb's article has now become a book! Titled Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, her book is already being sold on Amazon. (Not posting the link-- I don't want a flood of feminist clicks to signal Amazon that they should be carrying more of these types of books). Once again, and rightly so, critics are responding to her article debunking many of her claims.

That is not my feminist tirade, however. My tirade is how all of the critics have focused on the wrong issue: Lori Gottlieb. Turns out that Lori is a 42 single mom, and that she herself cannot actually bring herself to settle because she can't think of anyone whom would be good enough for her kid. As Ms. Gottlieb states, "It's one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it's quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child." Ha ha, look at the hypocrite!

Yes, yes, it's all fun and games to point out when someone does not, in fact, walk their own walk. However, Ms. Gottlieb's personal life doesn't bother me. To me, she is merely a person who is lamenting about what she wished she could have (or maybe what she wished was different), and, really, her personal choice to not get married, now desire to be married, be a mother, have a father for her child and write about her feelings are her own personal choice. Yay for feminism to allow her to write things so openly that I vehemently disagree with. Another yay for feminism that she is a famous social commentator who has been featured on NPR, This American Life, The New York Times, The Atlantic and Salon, among others.

But not one of her critics used this opportunity to discuss critical feminist theory. The idea that women have been so ingrained with the thought that marriage is required for a happy life is just absolutely sexist, awful and plain wrong. Gottlieb's article (and now book) speaks to women's settling as a natural thing. This is true-- women constantly settle-- but only because societal conditioning has reinforced the idea that girls should "play nice" and "get along," which goes hand in hand with compromise and settling. (As you notice, there are few articles advising men to just settle. In fact, it's generally quite the opposite-- most men's magazine articles speak to how to get the girl of your dreams (aka, that hot chick at the bar) and how to never to take no for an answer).

Then there's the idea that all individuals want marriage. As Gottlieb says, "And all I can say is, if you say you're not worried [about getting married], either you're in denial or you're lying." Oh, if only it were that simple. See, there are these things called open relationships, nontraditional relationships, polyamorous relationships, asexuality, not married by default (aka, being gay and not living in a kick-ass state) and just plain not interested in being married. While I could march out some evidence that such relationships exist and compare them to your average heterosexual marriage, I have a better idea: let's just take people at their word when they say they don't want to be married. And better yet, if they are over 30, let's just let them live their lives the way they want to and not fall into the cultural mindset that they should somehow be pitied or congratulated for their bravery.

Furthermore, when someone (a woman, according to Gottlieb) says that she doesn't want to get married (either by choice or because she hasn't met the right person), let's not shove our own cultural expectations down their throats.

Next tirade goes to violence against women. Oh yes, I know, domestic violence and intimate partner violence can be against men as well-- and it does not receive nearly as much attention as it should. The reason why I have framed my tirade as violence against women is because Gottlieb's article focuses on why women should settle, which falls in perfectly with a batter's comment that the abused isn't good enough to find someone else-- he's all that she'll have. Plus, Gottlieb's comments also fall into the idea that being with a man (regardless of the quality) is still better than no man at all. From my years of domestic violence advocacy, I can attest that both lines of thinking are alive and well, and many battered women take them to heart.

So let me say this: even though I think Gottlieb's premise is awful, if you are going to settle, just make sure you settle for someone who at least respects you as a person, does not threaten or intimidate you in any way and allows you the independence required to live your own life with dignity.

But if you want to be like me, you'll adopt the following saying: I would rather be by myself in the company of friends than be in a relationship where I'm miserable and afraid to go to home. See Ms. Gottlieb? I'm a woman close to 30 who is not in denial or lying to myself-- I truly understand my options and I choose the option of being happy. Once again, yay feminism for telling the world that it's bad to be in an unhealthy relationship!

There's so much more to write, including how she completely disregards queer folks, but it's too late to keep writing. Post to be continued!

Abort!

2009-12-17T05:41:01Z

Joe Lieberman (I-CT) reported that he would not support the health care bill. And now Democratic leaders are looking for others to pass the bill.

Oh dear.

Actually, not that's not the big piece of news. This bill shouldn't go through-- it doesn't do anything. No public option= no better health care for the person who is now unemployed, without health insurance and without money to pay for decent health insurance. (And no, this person is not Average Joe, it is Average Jane, as the majority of unemployed and uninsured are young women of color).

To me the biggest piece of news is that in an effort to try to get enough votes to pass the health care bill, Democratic leaders offered a compromise on abortion rights, hoping to get votes from Sen. Nelson (the same guy who wrote and sponsored that Nelson-Hatch Amendment) and Sen. Casey (one of the supporters of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment).

I'm already dismayed at Democratic leadership, but come on folks, this is an all-time low. First you allow the Stupak Amendment to pass the house (thanks Nancy Pelosi!). Then you barely scrape up enough votes to table the Nelson-Hatch Amendment. Now this.

I would insert some sort of dark humored abortion joke here about exercising my choice to abort the Democratic Party from my voter registration card, but that's too obvious-- just like the Democrats' willingness to throw us all under the bus.

Cap and Trade

2009-12-11T19:40:42Z

While the Copenhagen Climate Talks are happening, I thought it would be a good time to post this video to quickly explain what everyone is talking about with regard to Cap and Trade.

I have to disclose that I'm not a scientist (I'm not even all that well-versed in science) and I rely upon other people to explain the facts behind environmental destruction and the benefits and downfalls of different sources of energy (nuclear, wind, coal, etc.). That said, if you feel something was inaccurately stated in the video or that something should be brought to light, please feel free to comment. But please, no crazy comments about the fact that there is no such thing as global warming-- for those of you who may think that global warming is just a myth, I've got some other news for you: the moon landing actually happened, dinosaurs existed and evolution is a scientific fact.

What I do know, though, is that I'm getting tired of the fact that government-funded public service announcements inform the public about the need for everyone to do their part to reduce their energy consumption, while failing to take any measures against corporations that contributed to (and continue to contribute to) our environmental destruction.

That, for me, is where Cap and Trade fits in. It's an ineffective policy that will allow corporations to continue avoiding any sort of meaningful penalty for their actions or incentive to adopt greener policies. We need strong action against corporations in order to better the environment: changing our lightbulbs will only do so much.

It should also be noted that since the beginning of the Copenhagen Climate Talks, it was 65 degrees in NYC while snowing in Texas, and a giant iceberg is drifting toward Australia. Somewhere, a polar bear is dying.

Nelson-Hatch Amendment Tabled (Defeated)

2009-12-08T23:12:06Z

Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment. The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported. Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment. Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate. Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment. The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy. Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy. Where is this idea that it is well settled policy?

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority. There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric. Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans. Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?

Fucking Democrats-- Senate and House Amendments to Limit Abortion Rights

2009-12-07T23:56:41Z

For those of you who don't know, there has been some major movement around healthcare reform to further limit abortion rights.

Before I start, a quick history lesson:
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, in which the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'" This case remains one of the most controversial cases to date. Since Roe v. Wade the Court's reasoning has been severely warped and limited with further cases such as Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, an Act that was not grounded in scientific reasoning and opposed by the vast majority of medical and scientific organizations).

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for a woman's abortion. This Amendment unfairly punished those women who were recipients of welfare. Women's rights activists and poverty/welfare activists were furious.

Despite the Hyde Amendment, a few states expanded their state Medicare coverage to cover the cost of an abortion. Out of these states, some will fund any elective abortion, while others will only pay for an abortion if pregnancy resulted from rape or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.

In addition, many private health insurance companies provide coverage for abortions and abortion-related healthcare, including post-operation medications and examinations. Kaiser-Permanente is one of the largest health insurance companies to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for women-- they are also one of the largest powerhouses to lobby federal government to prevent setbacks for women's rights. Yes, it might be driven by profit for them, but I'm excited to see that the pro-choice movement has at least one huge insurance company to fund these campaigns.

Now onto current events:
The heatlhcare reform debate in the House and Senate is being undermined by stupid Democrats. First, there was the Stupak Amendment that passed the House. The Stupak Amendment barred any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions. Essentially, this would prohibit any woman from getting her abortion covered by insurance. This takes the Hyde Amendment to a whole new level!

Not only is Representative Stupak a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, caved in and voted in support of the amendment to save the healthcare reform bill. That rings a 10 on my what-the-fuck scale.

But that's not the end. Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) has now proposed a Senate Amendment that is identical to the Stupak Amendment. And guess who he partnered with to create such a gem of a legislation-- our old friend, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the same Republican Senator who used the Senate Finance Committee in early November to pass a bill that would effectively restore $50 million for abstinence-only education.

That's it-- I've had it with the Democrats in office. I know I say this often, but I really don't see any difference now between the Republicans and Democrats in office. The only reason I have caved and voted Democrat in presidential elections is to protect a woman's right to choose. But now I can't even rely on that. Fuck, even our President spoke about healthcare in such ambiguous terms so as to not make any public statement for or against abortion rights. I just can't deal with this.

Next election, I refuse to vote Democrat. As someone who has always campaigned for presidential candidates (and yes, I phone banked for Kerry and then for Hillary and then for Obama), I refuse, REFUSE, to help elect another Democrat to office. The only issue I will fight for is no longer on their radar.

I urge you to take action to stop the Nelson-Hatch Amendment. Let's not undermine women's healthcare more than we already have! Click here to sign a petition and contact your Senators! The vote is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, so act quickly!

P.S. I would have put a link to a NY Times article about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but for some reason they haven't published a story on it yet. Add tag for media bias.

Time, Bush, Obama and AIDS

2009-12-06T03:53:17Z

This past Wednesday, Time Magazine published this article that portrayed Obama as scaling back Bush's AIDS initiative. Now before I start on my rant about how incorrect this article is, I have to admit that PEPfAR was a pretty neat thing; a commitment to spend more than $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS over five years is great. But I refuse to ooze thanks to former President Bush like most world leaders did at the time-- I do not feel the need to congratulate our former President in the same way I would give a high-five to a two year old for eating without getting peas in his hair. PEPfAR was a long time coming, and it was the least he could do after screwing our nation in his eight years of presidency.

In our world today, over 33.4 million are HIV positive, but only 4 million have access to HIV or AIDS treatment. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 1 million people are HIV positive, but that only a third of those individuals actually know their diagnosis. In fact, between 2001-2005, HIV transmission rate increased 17% in people ages 50 and older. Although black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all women in the United States, these two groups account for 82% (almost 9 million) of the estimated total AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005.

Knowing these facts, let's take a look at what former President Bush did for our nation. Oh that's right, one of his first acts in office was to institute the Global Gag Rule, a policy that prohibited federal funding for abortion services. Although it was limited to abortions, the Global Gag Rule effectively shut down many family planning operations worldwide, as many family planning clinics were in some way associated with providing for abortion care. Result? Most women in developing nations who relied on U.S. funded family planning programs had nowhere to go-- no maternal health, no reproductive health screening or treatment, and yes, no access to STD or HIV/AIDS treatment or testing.

Then there was also the infamous birth of Title V, an Act that would ensure that federal dollars only be used for abstinence-only education. I can easily create a whole new blog on abstinence-only education, so I'll make this short: abstinence-only education is ineffective through and through. Telling youth to save themselves for marriage is not a a life-long message. First, this mantra seems to forget that even when you are married, you can get STDs/HIV-- as far as I know, marriage does not equal fidelity. (*cough* Sen. Mark Sanford (R-SC) *cough*) Second, it only preaches to those, who at the time, identify as heterosexual. Sadly, same-sex marriage has not been accepted in many states. And, finally, abstinence-only education has been criticized for giving incorrect information to our youth; for instance, informing school children that condoms are more ineffective than they are effective.

During his presidency, Bush also blocked federal funding from needle-exchange programs. It wasn't until 2008 when Democrats reached a super majority that federally funding was restored to needle-exchange programs.

Yay President Bush-- you destroyed so many worthwhile programs, but made up for it by creating PEPfAR! It's like you're curious George: you always come through in the end. Oh, and P.S., good job for also getting through that sentence without stumbling!

Now let's look at our current President. One of Obama's first acts in office was repealing the Global Gag Rule. Then he abolished Title V in an effort to put federal funding back into comprehensive sexual health education (although Sen. Hatch (R-UT) was able to pass an amendment through the Senate finance committee that would restore $50 million to abstinence-only education). Next, he lifted the travel ban for HIV positive individuals, so that the U.S. could be an integral player in the fight against HIV/AIDS. And finally, this past month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicare coverage extend to cover HIV screening and treatment. The coverage was extended in early November, which will provide HIV screening and coverage for youth, pregnant women and individuals over age age of 65.

So, Time, I just have to ask-- what were you thinking when you published that article?

A commitment to end HIV/AIDS is a political movement. It means acknowledging that people are sexual beings and openly discussing sexuality in a way that would encourage healthy sexual activity and create treatments for those who have been infected with STDs. It means not blaming someone for engaging in "risky" sexual activity, or blaming someone for addiction to intervenous drugs. It means that we are looking for equality in the most basic human function: the right to livelihood.

In addition, when you commit to combating AIDS, it means that are asking for universal healthcare for anyone regardless of age, race, gender or sexuality. It means that you are asking that individuals receive the treatment necessary to survive, or that they receive the education they need so that they can make well-informed decisions. You are asking for an overhaul of our private healthcare system and our educational initiatives. This is not a feel good movement-- this should be something that makes you upset that in 2009, almost a good 20 years after our government began to recognize the AIDS epidemic, that only bare minimum has been done to combat this infectious disease.

I fully believe that if Bush had not been our president, we could have shaved 8 years off of that 20 year mark. Instead, Obama now has to make up for Bush's horrible policies and then some. Let's credit Obama for what he's doing to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic...and then demand that he do even more.

CNN Anonymous

2009-01-03T07:03:14Z

Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m a gratefully-recovering CNN-addict.

Hi, Bob.

I really wanted to name this post: wtf is wrong with the US media, part III, but I thought it was getting stale. I just really can’t think of anything else to say.

First of all, two of the top stories on cnn.com are about sick/dead celebrities’ children. Yes, it’s sad that your son has just been diagnosed with some rare disease/has died . Thousands of people die every day, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands die because of American and foreign corporations that are raping the earth, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in the war, but we don’t hear about them. I still do not understand why celebrities are considered news. Perhaps the only time a celebrity should be in the news would be a headline reading: “Madonna Receives Nobel Prize for Physics Due to Discovery of Quantuum Worm Holes in Deep Space”. You know, something significant.

Second of all, I was reading this article that was waxing poetic about the possibilities of politics in 2009. Part of it discussed the deflation of the Republican party, which is of importance since it is now the opposition party. And then, then the article states: If the Republican Party is not effective, does the national media become the opposition voice?

The nation media has COMPLETELY CEASED to have the ability to become the opposition voice! When the current administration was banging the war drums, the media rolled over and served as a megaphone for the Beltway. During the entire primary and election season, the media parroted and sound-clipped the trail, but didn’t do any significant vetting or provide citizens with coverage of any third party candidates. The media has ceased to be the ‘fourth estate’, and no longer can be used as a tool to keep other branches of government in check. “Does the national media become the opposition voice?” Dream on, CNN. If you think you are capable of becoming a true voice of opposition, I’m capable of growing a second head. Seriously. How can they even delude themselves? The nation media is stuck in the entertainment business, when they should be in the journalism business.

And, me, like Bob, can’t stop going to these sites and watching/listening these shows. Does it make me a more educated soapboxer, or is it the worst thing I could possibly be doing?

I was watching this interview of Utah Phillips, late folk singer/activist. He was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! If you get a chance, do check out that interview; Utah Phillips is fun to listen to. Here’s what he said in response to a question about the media.

UTAH PHILLIPS: “Let’s see, you started out with what media has done to people. You know that better than I do. That’s why you do what you do. See, you’re doing an alternative media. And if we play our cards right and have enough time, then pretty soon it won’t be alternative media anymore. But then, we have a thorough understanding—don’t we, Amy—that they fight with money and we fight with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time. So we’ll just be patient, and you do your work, and I’ll do mine, and we’ll catch up and overtake them.

It’s a damn shame, though, that we have to be alternative. But then, we’re in a capitalist environment, we’re in a capitalist system that’s built on—that’s built on the least commendable features of the human psyche, greed and envy, rather than the best. We in community radio, in pirate radio, in alternative music distribution, we reach for the best in people, you know, we don’t—not lowest common denominators. And we are building a new world within the shell of the old.

I don’t feel pessimistic about that at all. There’s simply too many good people right here in this room, too many good people on the street, close to the street, doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I’m going to—I’ll tell people that tonight, damn it. I’m glad it came up. If I look at the world from the top down, from FOX, God help me, or CNN or—there ought to be a CNN-Anon to wean people from that idiocy. If I look at it from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I say, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?”

wtf is wrong with the US media, part ii

2008-11-17T16:45:24Z

So I logged onto CNN.com in the middle of the night, and switched over to the "international" addition. Did you know that Japan is in a recession, too? I'm always shocked (well not really) at the difference between US news and international news. No wonder we're all so ignorant over here, when our news headlines are dominated by regurgitated garbage, and other nations get real news. Even on CNN.com! CNN is an American news network. There is no reason that the headlines for the international scene shouldn't be the same thing that you see when you click on CNN.com! Like they just know that they can spoon feed us garbage.

on the fringe

2008-11-05T22:32:49Z

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night! I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there. I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party. I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?"

I hope that Obama will help do that. That's the change I'm looking for.

i'm sitting this election out: update

2008-11-04T03:40:17Z

I never received my ballot.

I am so furious about this. The futility of the vote is just so strong for me, now. I think, what does it matter, my one vote? Of course, this is what they want you to think.

There was a previous post on this blog, about when our tolerance will be reached for becoming upset about stolen elections. It's gotten to the point where people don't even think that their vote really matters, since so many of our elections are futile. The first presidential election I was able to vote for (in 2004) was a preponderance to me. I stood in line for over an hour. When I finally cast my ballot, I shoved an ATM card into a machine. I voted, and I wanted my receipt. There was none. Whenever you make a purchase, you get a receipt for it. I had NO EVIDENCE that I had voted. No proof. Nothing. Just an "I voted" sticker. It made me feel like an appeased pet.

I'm angry. And not altogether convinced that my vote would have counted anyway. No wonder we're so jaded. It's as if voting is just another exercise in futility. Like victims of learned helplessness, there is nothing we can from becoming shocked when we try to jump out of our cages.

i'm sitting this election out

2008-11-03T18:03:34Z

In the wake of an election that some people have been anticipating for 8 years, I am accepting the fact that I'm sitting this election out.

Not voluntarily.

I am currently living in Chicago, Illinois, and requested my absentee ballot way back in September. In fact, my father even put in an additional request about a month ago. They received their ballots, and I never received mine.

I called the supervisor of elections in Hillsborough County, Florida, last week. Which, apparently, was just too late. They stated that they sent out the ballot a long time ago, and it must be the post office's fault, thank you very much. She informed me that they've been getting a lot of these calls.

She said that she would issue a new ballot. It is Monday, and I have yet to receive the ballot in the mail. The mail doesn't come until about 3. I would have to rapidly fill out my ballot, rush to the post office, and send it overnight. Since, as the woman told me, the ballot has to be physically in their office on November 4th.

So even if I manage to get home in time from the library, where I am currently working on job and grad school applications, and get to the post office before it closes, it will cost me 16 dollars to theoretically get my ballot into the voting office.

This doesn't even answer the question: what happened to my original ballot that was mailed out by the Supervisor of Elections? Let's say that someone got this ballot and used it to vote, and sent it in. What happens when my 16 dollar ballot comes in, and they say, "Well, this person can't vote twice?" Do they throw out both of these ballots?

I want to know who stole my ballot! It's not fair. It's not fair that I might have to pay 16 dollars (when I'm so broke and unemployed) to vote in this election. It's not my fault that I didn't recieve my ballot. Why does it have to be in on November 4th?

Apparently Florida has had one of the largest problems with missing absentee ballots in the country. I feel robbed of my right to vote. I might be bitter about this one for years. I can't believe that people choose not to vote.

I'll never get this vote back. For the next two, four, eight years, when I am upset about a politician, I won't even be able to say, "I voted for the other guy." I have become involuntarily apathetic.

WTF is wrong with the U.S. media?

2008-09-27T21:57:00Z

the end of free trade

2008-09-11T19:48:11Z

The bail outs of Fannie May and Freddie Mac are the largest corporate buy-outs of the US Government in history. It is the government, once again, telling corporations that they have a friend in the US Government. The reasons for the buy-out were cited as a rescue of a free-falling economy, but it sends the message that if you're a drowning corporation, the government will help you. What if you're a drowning individual? I guess they don't really care.

Stop corporate handouts!