political ramblings from last fall

I was cleaning out files on my computer, and I found this. It is a blog I started (and never finished) shortly after the presidential election (November 2016). I tried to flesh it out a bit, but it’s just several snippets on the topic of politics. So...enjoy? 

____________________________

I fear that we who think of ourselves as liberal, progressive, even moderate will close our eyes to the real takeaway from this election. After our shock and anger and sadness fade, after we assuage our pain with platitudes of love and family and community, we’ll simply move on without examining this whole election. All these calls for love and respect – I worry they will in reality equal doing nothing. They are simply another version of the “thoughts and prayers” that conservative offer whenever some mass shooting occurs: ultimately meaningless.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

We ignore things. We worry and complain about them when they come up – the problem of the Electoral College, for example – and then we forget about it, until 4 or 8 or 12 years later when it comes up again. We know it’s a problem, a fixable problem, but we don’t fix. We don’t even make and attempt to fix. When Hillary Clinton’s supporters had to keep trying to convince people that even though they may not like her, they should still vote for her, is that not a big red flag? When the Democratic party possibly fudges the primary votes in favor of a candidate, is that not a big red flag? Apparently not, because mostly we ignore all that, too. Instead, we prefer to blame anybody who supported or, god forbid, actually voted for a third-party candidate.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Donald Trump was right, in a sense, when he said the electoral system is rigged – just in a more complex way than he meant. Our government, on most levels, is monopolized by an entrenched two-party system. An us-versus-them/all-or-nothing/winning-at-the-expense-of-right-and-reason system. And these parties have no obligation to be “fair” because they make their own rules. But the big thing that keeps them in power is they have the infrastructure to get their candidates on the ballot, the money to advertise, and they’ve convinced the population that other parties aren’t serious options. The inclusion of any third-party candidates in mainstream political discussion, much less in an actual debate, is rare. All of our “institutions” in this country tell the same story about candidates outside of the Democrat and Republican parties: that they’re unrealistic, no chance of winning, at best (or worst) steals votes from the serious legit candidates.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

I suspect that many voters weren’t paying attention to every speech given by the candidates, nor to all the specifics of any party’s platform. A lot of people just voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton, because of what she represents to them, which is:

- an entrenched political elite out of touch with the average person

- a political class who speaks in “talking points” and bases decisions on focus groups

- a politician who tells you what you want instead of asking you

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Significant government reform – real changes in what gets done and what doesn’t – may be simply be impossible without first getting the influence of money out of government. Campaign finance reform – that’s a good starting place. Publicly-funded election campaigns mean that candidates aren’t beholden to their major donors whenever those donors’ pet issues come up. And, I suspect, directly related to campaign finance is the way lobbyists work. Companies and organizations with money to throw around in support of their agendas hire people to wine and dine and chat up our representatives, to the point that they’re no longer OUR representatives. I think our justice system is in on it, too, when they rule that corporations are “people” and that money is “speech.” I want to say it’s insane, but it’s much worse than that – it’s devious; it’s evil; it’s repugnant. 

The Church of Trump

During and after last night’s election debate (which I hesitate to call “presidential”), I’ve seen a lot of fact-checking, particularly of things that Trump said. 

I worry that fact-checking someone like Donald Trump will have little or no effect. Trump himself will just tell another lie and keep telling it until that lie becomes inconvenient. And his supporters seem to exhibit a sort of religious attitude toward him and whatever they think he said or did or didn’t do. 

Actual, verifiable facts don’t really matter when your attitude is “Trump said it, I believe it, that settles it.” The Trump-isms that complement the believers’ attitudes and hopes for ‘Murica, they quote and fetishize, while either ignoring or being ignorant of the inconsistencies and the morally problematic history. And anyone who is not one of the faithful is a tool of evil, trying to replace the Messiah-Trump with Lady-Satan (or, as she’s known in her human form, Hillary Clinton). 

For me, just like with religions, perhaps the saddest part is that not all Trump supporters are ignorant hillbilly-types whose critical thinking skills only extend as far as what to order from the value menu and who to vote for on American Idol. There are reasonably well-educated people who will twist and turn and do all manner of mental gymnastics to defend the idea that Trump can actually do any of the things he talks about doing as president, and making America great again. I think we should start calling these people “Trump apologists”. Just like with religious apologists, I am confused when otherwise intelligent people put so much effort into trying to craft an intellectual defense of something that is inherently anti-intellectual. 

Electoral College

I’ve been anti-Electoral College for a while now. 

If you’re not sure what I mean, it’s that problem every four years during American Presidential elections where certain states are “swing states”. Certain states don’t get much attention, aren’t really part of the national campaign because they’re a solid “red state” or they just don’t have enough Electoral College votes to matter much. 

That has just never made sense to me. Maaaayyyyybe there was a time when it made sense, if the average voter just didn’t know much about the national issues, so they elect someone local who they know and perhaps respect, then those people go and elect a president. But today that’s just ridiculous and it leads to some weird election campaigning strategies. I’ve often thought, “Why not just let it go? Get rid of the Electoral College. It’s a leftover, antiquated idea.” 

We’re reluctant to let go of things, though, even when they’re not really working anymore. Like religion – it’s not really working so well for us anymore, yet a lot of people are reluctant to let it go. Then again, maybe religion IS working. I guess you’d have to figure out the actual purpose of religion to know the answer. 

Here’s a better (?) example: the whole “gay marriage” resistance that we’re seeing these days. For the sake of argument...suppose there was a time when it “made sense” that people of the same gender couldn’t marry. Well, marriage has actually changed in the past 50 years or 100 years or whatever, and it’s not because of some “gay agenda” to redefine marriage. As society has changed, straight people in marriages have changed what marriage is to the point that it’s something more and more gay people saw as something in which they want to participate. It’s no longer “the husband does this and the wife does that,” but it’s become more of a “we’re in a loving and committed relationship and we want to symbolically and legally join our lives” kind of thing. So we need to let go of that older idea of what a marriage was, because it just isn’t working for us anymore. 

(Was that a better example? You be the judge.) 

Anyway, the Electoral College doesn’t seem to work for the entire country anymore. I suppose you could say it’s working for some people – people in those swing states, whose vote is worth more, is more important that votes from people who live elsewhere. If you have a choice between two states in which you could vote (let’s say you attend college in another state), the perceived value of your presidential vote shouldn’t be a determining factor for where you decide to vote. If it’s possible to clearly win the popular vote but lose the election, there’s something wrong with the voting system. 

Well, since we’re so reluctant to let things go when they’re not working for us, how about this: instead of simply abolishing the Electoral College, why don’t we tweak it a little? In election coverage, nobody talks about winning the “Oregon vote” or the “North Carolina vote” unless it’s to do with the Electoral College, or to demonstrate how backward a particular state might be. (Yes, I’m talking about you, Mississippi.) But people definitely talk about other votes: the black vote; the women’s vote; the Latino vote; the elderly vote. Maybe that should be our electoral college. So whoever wins the “black vote” gets all the black Electoral College votes, etc. We’d have to figure out all the different categories, and the categories might change every four years. Each person still only gets one vote, but if they fall into more than one category, they can decide. So your half African American, half Latino, elderly, bi-sexual grandmother would get to decide where her vote is going. Non-disabled, cis-gendered, white men aged 21-60 don’t get an option, they have to vote “white dude” – call it “reparations”. 

What do you think, America? I say we give it a try, and see what happens.

the skinny-dipping congressman

A congressman from Kansas—Kevin Yoder—

Yep, I am "that guy"!

—while on a recent, privately funded, congressional “fact-finding” trip (whatever that means) went skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee.

That's right, the one that's in the Bible.

He was one of several members of Congress, their staff &/or family members who went in for a swim after diner and drinks. But apparently he was the only one to go naked.  

Well...okay. So what?

Yoder later made a statement to Politico.com:

“It is my greatest honor to represent the people of Kansas in Congress and [for] any embarrassment I have caused for my colleagues and constituents, I apologize.” (politico.com)

Wow. Really? This man did what, in that moment, probably seemed like a natural sort of thing. Why in the world is this an issue? Why should anyone need to apologize for this?

Apparently he and the others in the group were “rebuked” by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia).

Grr...Eric Cantor not happy.

Ya know, unless there’s a whole lot more that’s not being told in the news reports (and why is this even news-worthy?), then this is ridiculous nonsense. Maybe some prudish, uptight people would find Congressman Yoder’s behavior to be upsetting. But I simply do not see how skinny-dipping has any impact on his ability to do his job.

The world is clearly fucked up.

Fun at airports (2)

This man, John Brennan

(not to be confused with John O. Brennan, the chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama), was arrested this spring after he stripped at an airport.

In frustration over the increasingly invasive security procedures, he took off all his clothes at the Portland International Airport.

Last week he went to court. His defense was that his nakedness was a protest and, as such, was a type of legally protected free speech. Apparently the judge agreed. He was found not guilty of indecent exposure. 

I say this: if they just went ahead and had everybody strip naked and ride airplanes naked, maybe they wouldn’t worry so much about concealed weapons.

NPR article

Michigan Vagina 2 (update)

So, if you don’t know about the recent “Vagina” controversy in Michigan, just google it, or see my post from a few days ago. 

So here’s what’s new:

Last night a reading of The Vagina Monologues took place on the steps of the Michigan Statehouse. Performers included several female Democratic  state lawmakers and Eve Ensler (author of The Vagina Monologues).

Michigan State Rep. Lisa Brown

Eve Ensler

Huffington Post article 

I said it then, and I still say it now: Vagina, vagina, vagina!

Or, to misquote Patrick Henry, “Give me vagina, or give me death!”

Michigan Vagina

So, Michigan State Representative Lisa Brown

has been banned indefinitely from the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives, for using her word “vagina” during a debate on an abortion bill.

At least, that’s what everybody’s saying. Apparently, the reason wasn’t specified.  

Another Representative—Barb Byrum—was also banned, for trying to speak out of turn, which is a violation of the rules, but rarely results in being banned.

Now, concerning Representative Brown’s banning, I’m sure it’s quite possible that it was simply her use of the word “vagina”. But it might also be more her attitude when using the word. She said, “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but no means no.”

I feel, after listening to her, that the tone changed there at the end with what seemed perhaps a mildly incendiary comment.

That’s not to say she should be banned for it. I’m sure plenty of other things that I’d find offensive have been said on that and other legislative floors.  

Anyway...if, in fact, she was banned for using the word “vagina” because the Michigan House Speaker felt it was inappropriate...well, that’s absolutely ridiculous.  

And here’s why I’m writing about it in my naked blog.

I think, and have said many times before, that if people were generally more comfortable with their bodies and others’ bodies, it would likely be part of a more general openness and comfortability in dealing with topics like sex, or perhaps scary words like “vagina”.

Vagina, vagina, vagina.

Come on, Michigan—you need to get comfortable with vaginas.

I’d certainly like to.

(Hey, just puttin' it out there, ya know?)

politico.com article

On Amendment One

I am taking a day off from the nakedness of my naked blog to post about North Carolina Amendment One. I mean, I’m naked while I write this, and I assume I’ll be naked much or all of the day. But, this isn’t my typical “naked blog” blog. Mainly, I’m posting this here because I know that MANY more people view this blog than my other “PG-13” blog.

So, Amendment 1 in North Carolina passed yesterday.

If you don’t know, it’s an amendment to the state constitution which says “that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”

One major result of this amendment being passed is that if or when “gay marriage” is recognized in the state, it will be harder to get it passed. “Gay marriage” was already illegal here, but now that it’s part of the constitution, the process to change the law is more difficult. But another concern of opponents is the impact on non-married heterosexual couples. Similarly worded laws have been used in other states to deny legal protection in cases of domestic abuse when the individuals involved are not married, etc.

I’ve seen it said in several places that the timing of this amendment is an issue, and that its backers did this on purpose—putting the amendment on the primary ballot, when turnout is generally low.  

For many potential voters, apathy is an issue. Unless you’re particularly interested in some race or the amendment, it just may not seem that important.

Apparently it was a high (possibly record) turnout for a Primary election. Presidential election turnout is perhaps twice that of Primaries.

Amendment 1

For: 1,303,952 (61.05%   )

Against: 831,788 (38.95%)            

Registered voters: 6,296,759

Ballots cast: 2,164,074 (2,135,740 voting on the amendment)

That’s 34.37 % of registered voters who cast a ballots, and 33.92% of registered voters cast a vote on the Amendment issue. (from: results.enr.clarityelections.com)

Well...

Last night and this morning I’ve read many facebook statuses expressing sadness, anger, hurt feelings, etc.

I don’t happen to feel that way. It went down pretty-much as I expected it to.

I think that those against the amendment were very vocal. That was certainly my experience.

I would say that the vast majority of my friends and friendly acquaintances are liberals or social moderates. Also they are mostly educated. I’m sure many would consider themselves religious—Christians mainly, but again, moderate or liberal in their views.

Most of the people that I know, I know from “the arts”. They’re either currently or have been in the past involved somehow with theatre or music or dance or perhaps visual arts or writing. That’s what I do, so that’s who I know.

I think I have 1 for sure, possibly 2, facebook friends who expressed their position for the amendment. Most who mentioned it were against.

In the city where I live there’s a lot of community theatre here, and a little bit of professional theatre. There’s a state university here and several colleges. This county is one of a small number that voted against the amendment. I did not see a single “vote for” sign here, but I saw plenty of “vote against”.

I’m sure there places where that wasn’t the case, and I’m sure there are social circles wherein people were openly for the amendment.

But I think there’s a much larger silent conservative population here in “the South” and perhaps in many other parts of the country. These are people who may put up a sign in support of a conservative candidate, but they aren’t going to go out of their way to tell you that they support intolerance.

There are tons of smaller towns full of folks who don’t know (or don’t know that they know) people who are different from themselves. So they think that everyone does, AND SHOULD, think and live the way they themselves do.

These may be “nice” people, “well-meaning”, or older people “from a different time”. Or maybe these are “devout” people: people who hold strongly conservative religious beliefs, and as everyone know, religion, faith, belief, “spirituality”, etc is “a personal thing”. So if someone’s social/political stance is based in their religion, we’re not supposed to criticize it.

Well, I say that is bullshit. That’s like sitting there mute, or laughing uncomfortably while grandpa complains about the “japs” or the “kikes” or the “niggers”. I’m sorry, but NO, that’s not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable to give people a “pass” on discrimination because their religion tells them to.

Fuck religion.

I know people have strong feelings about their faith, their need for there to be a god and a heaven and some happy, feel-good stuff with which they can comfort themselves and each other. I get it. We as individuals grew up with this nonsense of moral codes and laws, coupled with a powerful sense of guilt and hive-minded “appropriateness”. It’s a great way to discourage mass public outrage at the inequalities of our way of life—“opiate of the masses” indeed.

I also get that we “grew up” as a species—as humans—with religion, with a sense of wonder and awe at the unknown and a desire to have some kind of assurance about things we can’t explain. It’s a part of our genetic makeup, in the same way that artistic expressions and storytelling and a need for belonging to some community are inherently part of us.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t get over our ignorant, blind acceptance of what the preacher tells us.

Religions come and go, religions change, religions get abandoned. It happens. I just wish to (the lack of a) god that it would happen faster.

Sadly, most people are lemmings. And, despite how they may be viewed by most folks, all of our societal institutions—church, the state, schools—are at their core in the business of supporting and furthering that lemming-ness. They keep people doing what they’re “supposed” to do, while distracting them from questioning the validity of those institutions.

And that also goes for marriage. Oh yeah, it’s so pretty and nice and romantic and happy and it makes me cry. It’s the end of one of the great stories in our culture: out of all the people in the world, Mister & Miss Right find each other; Prince Charming rescues his princess, happily ever after.

Bullshit.

“Mother Culture” has such a tight hold on us that she doesn’t have to whisper in our ear that everything’s gonna be okay if we just “go with the flow”. No, she’s shouting it and throwing and throwing us all a huge party that we think will never, in fact can never, end. And meanwhile, we’re drunk on the cheap booze and laughing as we do the limbo, or fighting valiantly to get our turn at the karaoke machine, ‘cause everyone ought to get a turn that wants it, right? That’s only fair.

P’shaw. Stuff and nonsense. It’s time to leave the “party”.

Okay, I realize that nobody checks out this blog to hear me ranting about my non-naked politics.
And, since I AM a stickler, and this IS a naked blog, so here’s a picture. Happy?