copyright 2010 mogmismo, used with permission.

I just received a forwarded email (copied in the first comment) from a representative of Conservative America, offering terms of settlement for divorce.  As it came to me, I reckon I am a fit delegate to respond to the offer.  My response is as follows:

Dear American Conservatives, righties, social retardists, despots, fascists, and Palin supporters, et al:

I have to say I was relieved to receive your email.  As you say, we have stuck together for years for the children, but given the obvious fact that the children are growing up and are able to make their own life choices, it’s clearly time we ended the game.  I’m in complete agreement that it’s far past time we stopped pretending to be on the same side, and I’m glad that for once you appear to be willing to talk on the level and come to a reasonable agreement.

I appreciate the fact that you clearly understand me well enough to offer some terms you feel I can not only accept, but even be happy with.  However, if this split is truly to happen on equitable terms, I have to clarify a few points.  I’m sure you will find my requests not only reasonable, but every bit as understanding and acceptable as those you have offered me.

Clearly, the dividing of assets is a necessary, but uncomfortable, part of any separation.  When it comes to actual landmass I can see that the argument could devolve to pettiness, but I think we can both be mature enough to realize that in actual fact, we rarely want the same things.  So I’ll take California, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington D.C., New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland…the states where same sex marriage is at least recognized (yes, I remember Proposition 8, but we both know it isn’t going to last (edit: told you).  I’ll also take Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, as along with California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maryland, they are the top solar producers.  I’d also like Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, and Iowa, as they are the top wind power producers in the country.  It only seems fair, since you are generously gifting me the alternative energy and hoping that fossil fuels are going to work out for you.  That’s 23 states, and to even it out completely, I think I should have Washington state and Oregon, as everyone knows they like me more than you.  Oh, and I’m going to have to ask for western North Carolina, or at least Asheville, as I live there and everyone I know in town pretty much hates you.

I’m going to be honest, here, and admit that I know Texas will be a bit of a wrench for you.  But, considering the Gulf War (which I know you intend to continue) and all the oil you can siphon out of the area around the BP oil spill, I’m sure you can see that it’s really a fair split.

Once that’s settled (and I think you can hardly disagree with my logic, so that should be simple), we can move on to dividing up the rest of our assets.

I’m happy to keep the redistributive taxes, though I hardly think we’ll need them once you’re gone.  I do understand that you will be taking at least 80% of the wealth in the nation with you, but I don’t think we’ll miss it.  After all, once you’re gone we can cure cancer and other congenital diseases, as well as make major advances in alternative energy, space exploration, and other sciences, so taking a long range view I’m figuring we’ll do OK.  Just as a side note, I think I should get to keep The Internet.  I know it was your kids who started it, but you have to admit it’s been our baby for a long time, and if you really had any invested interest in it Wikipedia and Opensecrets.org wouldn’t exist.  After all, it’s just a bunch of perverts and conspiracy theorists, why would you want it, anyway?

I’m happy to take the liberal judges and the ACLU, you can have the KKK, the white supremacists, the Christian fundamentalists, and Wall Street.  You can have your guns and war, but you must also take every single person who has ever participated at a Tough Man contest, the professional wrestlers, and Nascar.  All of it.  You also can keep Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Mel Gibson.  Quite honestly, I have no idea how you’re going to afford their medical bills, as I anticipate that drugs will be rather expensive over there, but I guess that’s really your problem, isn’t it?

Happy for you to have the pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart, we’ll take the public universities, NPR, and alternative press.  By all means keep the Alaskan hockey moms and greedy CEO’s, and you can have the rednecks but the country folk are ours.  Actually, I think we can make this even simpler: we keep art, education, and research, and you can keep religion and the military industrial complex.  I know we’ve always disagreed about the importance of these things, so you take yours and I’ll take mine and let the best man win.

Happy to take peace with Iran and Palestine, and you go ahead and fight them until you’re blue in the face.  Not stepping in to save your economy, though, you’ll have to go a little more in hock to China for that.  Speaking of which, you take the debts.  It was your missile habit that got us there in the first place, I don’t think I should have to pay for it.

In exchange, I’ll take on the U.N. bill, but if I’m paying for it that means I get the seat on the Security Council.  You can take as many “Judeo-Christian values” as you can muster, but I get the ones who want to turn the other cheek.  I’ll take the rest of the religions, though, as well as those who don’t espouse one.  It’s that Freedom of Religion thing that I always wanted to try.  You remember the one.

By all means take the gas guzzlers.  But in exchange, I get Detroit.  You screwed the pooch on that one, and I hear some folks there have some pretty interesting ideas that I’d like to support.

As to music, you can have “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem” (it’s called “The Star Spangled Banner”, by the way, but no one can sing it, anyway).  We’ll take all The Beatles, as well as punk rock, the blues, most rock and roll, and The Dixie Chicks.  You can have pop.

You can have the part of our history which you directed.  The loyalists during the Revolutionary War, every avowedly conservative President, McCarthyism, Japanese Internment, racism, sexism, etc.  We’ll keep the progressive bits, and I’m sorry to tell you that will include the Founding Fathers.

As to the flag, I propose a compromise:
 
You can keep the stripes, and we’ll hang on to the stars.

Sincerely,

Celestina Adams

Profligate and Heretic

Dear MoveOn,

A year and a half ago, you asked me to choose which Presidential candidate MoveOn, as an organization representative of my beliefs, should support and promote. I chose Barack Obama, as did many other MoveOn members. So many, in fact, that he received your endorsement for the Presidency; support which undoubtedly had a significant influence on the election results of 2008. Barack Obama is now President, thanks to our hard work.

And the country has yet to see the Change and Hope upon which he based his platform.

This is all the more disturbing considering the Democratic majority in Congress. Now that they have a so-called “super majority“, one would think that meaningful reform would be ushered immediately and gracefully onto the floor. But this has not happened, and according to any intelligent reading of the reports from Congress, it’s not about to happen. Despite their ability to enact real change which would have a significant impact on the American people…Congress is not inclined. It’s easy to say compromise is important, but when you have offered extensive compromise and your opponent says “Not good enough!”, it is time to walk away and carve a path on your own. Democrats do not need to compromise to enact health care reform, alternative energy research, net neutrality, or any other goal they strive to achieve…all they have to do is vote for it. Their reluctance to do so speaks volumes about their loyalties and their fears.

It is understandable, given the results of the last Democratic attempt to implement health care reform(1), that they would be cautious now. Recent polls(2), however, make it clear that the majority of American people want universal health care. It is traditional to try to ease in change, rather than rush it forward before a majority of the people understand the necessity. Immediate and goal-oriented action, however, is required if the United States is not only to survive, but to prosper, during the coming energy crisis. A belief in the efficacy of “trickle down” economics(3) has driven most Americans into debt and dishonor(4), and the very idea that Internet providers have a right to choose the future of ideas based on ability to pay is a demonstration of where such backward thinking has brought us. Congress can change the future, any time they wish. They just choose not to.

I am writing to you, then, MoveOn, to ask you to do what you do best: tell people their hopes and dreams are on the line, and it is up to them to make sure their elected representatives actually represent. If we want universal health care, we are going to have to demand it, louder than all the corporate interests and “Socialism Sucks!” naysayers who are making them wonder about the longevity of their appointment. If they supported the bill which makes the difference between life and death for the children of hard working, low income American families…they will be reelected, with or without the help of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. If we want clean energy and energy independence, we are going to have to write them, call them, show up at their offices with statements, arguments, and petitions until they realize that voting for funding which leads to less pollution, more financial security, and higher employment rates will get them reelected even without the support of fossil fuel dependent corporations which are desperately trying to cling to the pipe dreams of their youth. We can insist upon Net Neutrality, so that the Internet remains a place where every idea has a chance of being heard. For that matter, we can go further and ensure equal rights for homosexuals, abolish no-victim crimes, and end a few unnecessary military engagements. We can release some innocent men from Guantanamo, ditch the Patriot Act, and make sure that no President can ever, ever again take such unwarranted liberties with our Constitution as the last one did(5). Just this once, we don’t have to compromise. We can make change happen.

And we must, because time is disappearing beneath us. If the current administration, the current Congress, continue to do nothing for the next year, we will lose the power to enact the changes we so desperately need. The Democratic majority will be lost in the next mid-term election, the Presidency two years after that. While action may risk failure, inaction guarantees it.

So please, use your influence, your ability to pull people together, to remind us all that our work is not even half done. We have one good chance, right now, to change our lives for the better. Please don’t let it slip away.

Thank You,

Celestina Adams

Notes:
(1) Yes, I just referenced Wikipedia. Because it’s often accurate. And when it’s not, it is at least more amusing than Fox News.

(2) Just gotta mention this part While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move. Seriously, guys, this makes you look like a bunch of assholes. I know you probably have your reasons…but you probably need someone saner than Glen Beck to try to vouch for you at this point.

(3) One of the weirdest things that has happened in my lifetime is the idolization of Reagan. I know this is likely to get me crucified, but seriously people…he was a pathetic actor, and his Presidential highlights were largely based around watching Nancy throw her voice to cover his increasingly slurred/sugar-high gibberings. He was never, ever a “great” President. Get over it.

(4) New Appalachian farewell blessing: “May the wind be always at your back, and the repo man always under your heel…”

(5) Want to argue that point? Be my guest…

We Start At Birth

Various politicians have taken flack for proposing a particular age or grade where sex ed should begin. And rightly so. We should not wait until some completely arbitrary point in a child’s life to begin addressing the many topics which fall under the heading “sex ed”. From the moment a child realizes that he has hands, and then proceeds to use those hands to explore his own body, he is already experiencing the beginning stages of “sex ed”. From the moment a baby learns to focus her eyes and begins to observe our attitudes about our bodies and about sex, she is forming the platform upon which she will model her own behaviours. Every single parent is engaged in “sex ed”, whether they like it or not.

“Sex ed”, as formally taught, usually begins with a discussion of the various parts of both the male and female bodies, and the proper names for all their parts. Any child entering kindergarten who can name his fingers and toes but still refers to his penis as a “willy” is at a disadvantage. We don’t call our noses “nibnibs” or our bellybuttons “potholes”. In assigning cutsey names to sexual organs we are not protecting our children from the evils of the world, we are merely setting up an assumption that there is something dirty or wrong about those body parts. So let’s begin “sex ed” at home, without embarrassment, by simply naming all body parts with equal honesty.

By the time a child is five, they have already learned much by watching and imitating their parents. They have the foundation of sex roles and sexual attitudes already instilled within them. Parents continue “sex ed” in their demonstration of their attitudes to these issues. If the mother consistently capitulates to an overbearing father, the child learns that women are submissive (and yes, that can very well affect their sexual interactions later). If the father carries a burden of shame and weakly acquiesces to the mother’s every whim, then the child learns that women are the powerful ones, and men can only follow. If the parents make it a point to never be naked in front of a child, then the child learns that the body is something shameful, best kept secret. These are deeply ingrained attitudes in every person, but each parent owes it to their child to overcome them to the best of their ability, so that they are not passed on to the next generation.

Where Do Babies Come From?

Every parent is asked this question, generally well before their child is of age to enter kindergarten. Sadly, it is at this crucial juncture that many of even the most well-intentioned parents falter. Clearly, “storks” are not the answer, and “from love” is neither wholly accurate nor complete. We tell ourselves they are too young to understand, and yet we are perfectly comfortable explaining other complex human interactions or bodily functions. Our unease comes not from what the child can accept, but from our own discomfort discussing something we have been taught was dirty. And yet, if we want our children to grow up to be responsible about their sexuality, it is our own unease and irrational prejudice we must overcome.

Along with explaining the mechanism of sex, children are interested in (and deserve to know) the actual process of birth, their own and others. At this time, most people either tape the birth of their children or know someone who did. At the very least, there are plenty of still pictures and videos of birth on the internet. Children should see precisely how they came into the world and, if at all possible, attend at least one actual birth as they grow up. Whether male or female, they benefit greatly from understanding the drama, pain, and joy that go along with bringing a new life into the world.

Growing Up Knowing

As children get older, they become concerned with more than the simple mechanics of sexual intercourse, and they watch us for clues to how to approach it. Are we open and comfortable talking about sex? Can they approach us with their questions without fear of judgment? How do we relate over the topic of sex with other adults? Is it a part of life, just like eating and drinking and laughing? Or is it something never discussed in front of the children? If we take an open, honest approach then the children absorb much of what they need to know as they go along.

Take, for example, the issue of birth control. Much has been made of whether children should be taught about birth control in “sex ed” or whether the programs should focus on “abstinence only” instruction. Let’s be honest, here (after all, we’re adults, right?). No matter what your personal beliefs about when and how sex is appropriate, no matter how openly and comfortably you discuss your opinions with and in front of your children, hormones and curiosity are a potent mix. Unless you keep your child locked in a closet throughout their teenage years you simply cannot guarantee that they will not have sex before they are ready to raise a child of their own. And should your little one choose to play when you’re away, the last thing you want is to have them coming to you at thirteen with the announcement that they are about to embark on the wondrous adventure of parenthood for themself.

As to arguments that teaching kids about birth control encourages them to have sex, let us consider whether not teaching them about birth control discourages them to have sex? Have “abstinence only” programs reduced teen pregnancy? Clearly not. So ask yourself whether you would rather have your child engaging in sex with or without protection, at whatever point they decide to go there. It’s really that simple.

Assuming you have been honest with your child about sex, and assuming they have plenty of exposure to videos of live births and time with annoying smaller children, they are probably well-prepped to understand the importance of birth control. At what age should one approach the topic? The earlier the better, preferably the first time you explain to your child what sex is. “This is how babies get here, but sometimes people have sex when they don’t want babies, and so there are various means for avoiding pregnancy,” is a good start. From there, it tends to just flow in with the rest of the conversation. We, as adults, talk about birth control fairly often. We even see cars with blown up condoms attached to the bumper pulling away from weddings. It’s really not such a difficult thing to include our children in these conversations, and the more comfortable they see we are with the topic, the more likely they are to approach us with questions which may prevent a tragedy later on.

Sex Ed In The Classroom

As much as every child would benefit from being raised in a healthy sexual climate, we must also recognize that not all parents are up to the task. Right now, and for the forseeable future, many children will enter the school system knowing no more about sex than they do about advanced calculus. As the whole ostensible reason for a public education system is that society as a whole benefits when its members are educated, so also society as a whole benefits when each member is educated about sex and reproductive responsibility. So yes, the schools should teach sex ed. Beginning in kindergarten.

It’s a simple thing to include the reproductive system as we talk to kindergartners about their bodies. It’s really not so hard to discuss what sexual intercourse is. There is no reason in the world that children should not see videos of birth in school. And really, what is the problem with talking about contraception in the school system? It does not undermine any moral guidance you may give your child at home to have them hear that, at such time as they ever decide to have sex, here is how you go about preventing pregnancy. It’s a practical thing, a life skill. It’s not in any way akin to telling kids it is acceptable to kill, steal, or eat their younger siblings. Like so many things, giving our kids an understanding of contraception is handing them a tool which they can then employ at whatever point they choose.

So yes, let us have sex ed in school. Real sex ed, sex ed that actually educates. Let us have it in our schools and in our homes and anywhere else it might come up. Let’s not wait until our kids are teenagers and 22 out of every 1,000 girls are pregnant. It’s time we got past our fear of what giving kids the facts may do, and focused on what our policy of ignorance has created.

Presenting The Case

So, going back to my previous thoughts on the subject, we have already in the United States a significant number of people who feel that the current government is corrupt and dangerous to them in a very direct way (and this is important, because most people will not act until it effects them personally). Unfortunately, not enough people seem to realize that the real danger is not in higher taxes or the possible disappearance of Social Security, but in the fact that our government holds greater allegiance to corporations than it does to individual people. Consider, for example, this letter, which I read yesterday. It’s an open letter to Hillary Clinton, but the relevant part is the long (and referenced) list of ties between President Bill Clinton and corporations such as Monsanto and Tyson, and the obvious impact those connections have had on United States law and policy. And really, once you start digging, this stuff is everywhere. Our health, our wealth, and our freedom are being compromised in every department of government, simply because we have less clout than the corporations. And it absoloutely will not change, as long as people don’t know about it and allow the government to operate secretly.

So what to do? The first thing we have to do is get more people to understand what is happening. Here on the Internet, conspiracy theories abound, and as a result far too many people choose to believe that any criticism of the government is unfounded. What’s wrong with lobbyists, you know, since we live in a capitalist country and the lobbyists merely represent ordinary people who have worked hard and have a right to protect their interests? Except, of course, that corporations are not people, and their interests are not necessarily our interests. Consider the example above, of the policies put in place to protect Monsanto’s marketing of a certain growth hormone for cows. Even with reports coming in that this product was killing cows and potentially dangerous to humans, our government decided it was unnecessary for there to be any sort of warning on the milk we consumed. They went so far as to prevent companies not using the hormone from declaring as much on their labels. So I don’t know what “ordinary people” Monsanto is supposed to represent, but it’s not me and I rather imagine it’s not you. It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just government as usual in the United States. But the government here was never supposed to be controlled by a tiny minority, and it’s far past time we took it back.

Information, marketed every way we can manage, until we get past the “conspiracy theory” threshold. Until enough people realize the actual problem to be outraged and infuriated and ready to do something about it. Every single person reading this can contribute to the solution, can go out and write something somewhere which chips away at the willful ignorance just a little bit more. Pick any government office you like, and start following the trail back to whose pocketbook is benefiting from their policies. It’s never “we the people”. Put a name to it and start letting people know. It doesn’t cost any one of us anything but a few minutes of our time, but as a collective all our individual voices add up to spread a greater ideology which can inspire change which is truly meaningful.

Presenting The Case

Well, the only other option is revolution.

When you say revolution, everyone leaps to the conclusion that we are talking violence. I deplore violence (well, I admit to a penchant for kung fu movies, but that’s different), and fortunately violent revolution is not the only option. But before you can even address the question of effective nonviolent revolution, you have to deal with a couple of other issues. Like what, exactly, do we need to change, and what the hell is it going to take to get people to move out of their depressive apathy and actually try to change it? Today’s random thought is about what needs to change.

Personally, I think that if you are going to bother with government at all, a real democracy is an acceptable way to go with it. It’s not great, it’s not perfect, but it will do (I am totally open to suggestions, here, if anyone has a better plan). So my reckoning is that we aim for that. The Constitution really was a pretty decent document, and while parts of it could use some serious modernization, it’s an all right base platform. So what are the big things that need to change to get us some place close to there? The big things that have to go are those that stand in between the representatives and the people (and yeah, a representative democracy is still a democracy, and trying to come up with ways for a country as big as the U.S. to be a direct democracy makes my head hurt). So we have to get rid of lobbyists, corporations as people, a hackable voting system, a corrupted and biased media, and closed-door meetings where we the people aren’t supposed to need to know what is going on. I might make an exception to that last one for military planning sessions if they were recorded and given over to the public domain in their entirety as soon as relevant military actions were over, with a definitive date at which they must be released no matter what (and I am banking, here, on the idea that given transparency and accuracy in reporting, we probably are not going to have so many damned military actions). Everything else though, if they can’t tell us what they’re doing, they need to not be doing it.

So far we have the blogosphere and citizen journalism starting to make a small dent in the corrupted media. It’s not much, but it’s a start. Using that, I think we have a good launching ground for changing the rest. We can use the growing online community to expose and report on the influence of lobbyists and corporations on government, to report on and fight back against the ruined electoral system, and to share what information we can find on what our government is doing where we cannot see. It’s not gotten far, yet, but really we’re just beginning to realize how much power we can take back in this arena. The first step is gaining and sharing information, and getting more people to realize that most of the power has slipped out of their hands. That’s where it has to begin, and that is the first battle to be won. In a sense, then, the revolution has already begun.

So, think on that. I’m gonna think on that, and be back with part two tomorrow.

Dismissing With Nonsense

The fact that we have a contest between a woman and a black man is a wonderful demonstration of how much prejudices are being eroded in this country. And the facts that Hillary is a woman and Obama is black have nothing whatsoever to do with their qualifications as a leader. It may have some bearing on their ability to withstand the general election, but they are equally at a disadvantage there, so it is well past time we stopped focusing on those external differences and got down to more important things.

Likewise, we can and should refuse to listen to inane babble such as how Obama is secretly Muslim and is therefore going to hand us over to the terrorists. Such childish slanders are beneath playground children, and they are certainly beneath us.

The fact that both Obama and Clinton have changed their position on issues over the years is not a sign of weakness or lack of leadership on either of their parts. It’s a sign of intelligence, a mind that reevaluates situations once given more information. A characteristic not present in our current President, much to the detriment of our nation over the last seven years. So stop harping about it, and pay attention to what they are saying they want to do now.

It’s time we stopped discussing “experience”. Senator Obama has served in his federal legislative position for three years, and Senator Clinton has served in hers for seven. Before that, Obama was an Illinois state senator for seven years, and Clinton was First Lady for eight. Neither of them has much experience, and neither of them has any experience being in the position of President of the United States. It is true that Senator Clinton lived in the White House while her husband was President, and it is true that she worked in a diplomatic capacity while First Lady and undoubtedly talked with her husband about many of the issues current to that time. This does not equate to having experience making those decisions. The whole experience argument is ridiculous, and best let rest when we are comparing two junior Senators and their qualifications for the Presidency.

The Real Differences

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have remarkably similar positions on most issues. Much of the grandstanding on their differences is hogwash. Their stances on abortion are the same, their stances on climate change policy are very similar, their stances on illegal immigration are nearly identical (excepting Obama’s willingness to give illegal immigrants driver’s licences). They have similar approaches to improving the economy. At this point they are both opposed to the war in Iraq, and both have plans to slowly get the troops out. Obama would talk with the Iranian President and the leaders of other nations we “don’t like”, Clinton would not (or at least, not at first), though they both claim that they would engage in diplomatic talks with Iran before ever considering military force.

There are some significant differences in the Senators approaches to technology, in that Obama has presented a carefully-crafted plan which covers a broad range of tech-related subjects, including net neutrality, increasing the reach and speed of broadband, protecting children vs. First Amendment rights, and using modern technology to increase transparency and citizen participation in government. Senator Clinton’s plan looks sort of weak by contrast, particularly her support of the Connect America plan, which has come under fire for being based on the controversial Connect Kentucky plan which has been alleged to be a sop to Telecom lobbyists. If your life centers around the Internet (not that anyone reading this could possibly fall into that category, then Obama is a better choice.

Just a couple of days ago, Senator Clinton came out and said she would be willing to consider garnishing the wages of the uninsured, in order to get health insurance to all. It’s one solution to how she can make health insurance mandatory for all United States citizens. Senator Obama’s plan, by contrast, is an opt-in system, based on his idea that if insurance were affordable, people would not willingly choose to be uninsured. Your choice here basically boils down to how you feel about health insurance being mandatory.

If you are deciding your vote based on the candidates platforms, however, you can probably support one if you can support the other. It will not be the details of their disagreements which decides this election.

The real difference between these candidates is whom do you believe can and will carry through with their promises?

Obama has sworn not to take donations from federal lobbyists, whereas Clinton continues to do so and says she doesn’t see a problem with it. Obama’s “pre-politics” history is one of defending principle, while Clinton’s is largely one of defending corporate interests, with some charity work on the side.

Throughout the primaries, Clinton’s campaign has used steadily dirtier tactics in attempts to distort Obama’s history and message. She has been called on it again and again. As for Obama, he was accused of making underhanded attacks when he brought up Senator Clinton’s history sitting on the Wal-Mart corporate board, but this was a true statement, as far as it went, and a far cry from the blatant falsehoods being espoused by Clinton. Comparing the list of dirty plays, Senator Obama just comes up way short.

There is also the question of who would be the most effective and inspirational leader, and in this regard Obama wins hands down. Senator Clinton began this race as a polarizing figure, and her choices while it proceeds has only served to deepen that rift. We have lived through seven years of a deeply divided nation, no one wants to live through four more.

Lastly, let us consider who can actually win against a Republican candidate in November. Has anyone really forgotten the years of the Clinton Presidency? The controversies and scandals that were put down, rather than resolved? They will be back in a heartbeat, should Senator Clinton receive the nomination. They will take her down eventually, even if it’s just because the strain of withstanding them causes her to cry on camera a few too many times. The sympathy vote will only last so long, and sooner or later it will be recognized that she is simply too encumbered by ethical issues to serve as our President. Obama, however, has a remarkably clean slate thus far. While the Democrats are busy choosing which candidate to back, Republicans are already beginning to cross the aisle in support of Obama.

Where You Cast Your Vote Matters

Despite misgivings over the voting system, the message you send with your vote is deeply important. In casting your ballot, you choose between a known quantity — that of Hillary Clinton and all the good and bad which she represents, or an untested option — that of Barack Obama and what his promises might bring. It’s not enough to say that Washington is corrupt and there is no hope anywhere. You are still making a choice, and whether you believe the spiel of either candidate, your vote represents what you want to see happen in this nation. It is a message which will be read and understood, and with enough effort, it is a message which may yet make a difference.

Just look at that crowd… — Photo by roxannejomitchell’s photos, Creative Commons.

There are no false hopes. We need all the hope we can get. We have been living in a cultural dark ages, and it’s time we crawled out of it.

Seeing the terribly serious look on my son’s face as he said this sent shivers up my spine and reminded me what all the politics is really for. We are fighting these battles not for ourselves, to see our own ideas writ large across the face of this country, but for our children and our neighbors and all the people with whom we don’t agree. We all want to feel safe in our homes, we all want to believe that justice can once again be a word whose meaning we all understand. We all want our children to be fed and cared for, and we all want our elders to be able to retire with dignity. We all want clean air and clean water, and we all want each person to have an equal opportunity to make their mark on the world. We all need a release from the fear and the cynicism and the paralyzing sensation of helplessness which has become an inherent and accepted tradition among American citizens. We are all fighting so hard because we care so much, and in the end we care about the same things. We need to believe once more that perhaps there is something valuable our nation has to offer. That we can overcome our surface differences, our disparate religions and political parties and notions of what solutions will provide the best way forward to recognize that we are all, in the end, looking for the same thing: America.

It’s not a false hope to say that perhaps we can find a way forward. It’s not a false hope to say we can talk to each other and take the best parts from every system of belief and meld them into a new whole which may be greater than its various parts. We would be fools to let the cynics dictate our future. If all you ever have are small dreams, then the best you can ever achieve is a small vision, not much greater than where you started. But with big dreams, the dreams that have lain dormant in the hearts and minds of every person in this nation as we felt our country spinning farther and farther away from its original promise, every step we take forward is one piece in a much greater whole. We are at a juncture where only big dreams and the courage to hope will spark real change.

The quality that Barack Obama has which Hillary Clinton will never share is the ability to inspire. The President of the United States does not make the laws. He cannot enforce justice or ensure that our babies are born safely or promise care for our elderly. But what he can do, must do, is be the inspiration to others to try harder, work together, to make change happen. He must be a force which people want to follow, who gives us a reason to believe. Listening to people talk about Obama, reading the editorials, the bloggers, and even those who have come forward to endorse him, it is clear that not only do they want him for President: they believe in him. In Obama they see not a single man, they see a movement in which we are all a part, a slowly swelling tidal wave which can sweep over this nation and perhaps create something greater than any individual could ever accomplish.

Think, for just a moment, of the potential in that belief, of the power of a nation which could once again see past the divisive politics of the last seven years. And then please, when you close that little curtain and cast your vote, have the courage to hope.

Reminds me of “The Hanged Man”…*sigh* - Photo by Austen Squarepants. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Your Vote Kinda Counts

In the Democratic Presidential primaries, some votes count more than others. Which is to say that your vote counts just as much as everyone else who shows up at your polling station, but we all know that the Democratic candidate is not chosen by the people. He or she is chosen by the Democratic delegates. Which, you may say, is essentially the same thing, since the delegates vote for whomever received the most votes in their district. Not so fast. You are aware, aren’t you, that there are in fact two classes of Democratic delegates? There’s the regular 3,253 delegates, which depending on where you live, will be elected or appointed in mysterious ways at some point or other over the next five or so months. These delegates must vote for whomever their district chooses. And then there are the “super-delegates”, who are appointed by the Democratic National Committee. All 796 of them. That is, in case you were wondering, right about 20% of the Democratic primary vote. So working it out, (using 2004 Democratic primary turnout statistics), each delegate’s vote in the DNC is worth approximately 3,989 of our votes, but a fifth of those voting will not be bound in any way to vote according to the will of the people. They’re old-school political hacks, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton (guess who they’re voting for?), appointed by the party to make sure that the will of the people doesn’t conflict with the tried-and-true methodology of party wisdom. Just bear that in mind, when you go into the little booth and pull the curtain to choose your Democratic party Presidential candidate. Assuming you actually get a vote. Which brings us to…

How Independents Get Screwed

Perhaps you look at the two major political parties in the United States, and they both strike you as corrupt, mismanaged, and generally not anything to which you ever want your name attached. So you sign up as an “Independent”. It seems like a simple decision, until you get to primary season, where, depending on your location, it can become quite a big problem. In some states, as an Independent you get the joy of voting in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Seeing as there are no “Independent Primaries”, this makes sense and you are probably rather pleased that you can choose between all the candidates in an attempt to pick the least offensive one. In other states, however, you get no vote whatsoever. Like North Carolina, the location from which I am writing this little rant. Now mind you, I wouldn’t really be annoyed about not getting to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries if there were any viable third-party candidates and I could go choose one of them. But there aren’t, that our system is designed to keep it that way. Consider for example public funding of the Presidential elections, wherein a third-party candidate can receive some portion of the funding the Democratic and Republican candidates get, based on how well that party’s candidate did in last year’s election compared to the two “real” candidates. You folks who check “yes” on the voluntary checkoff box on our tax forms which is the source for public funding (though I sure wish you could chuck it at scientific grants or public education or something more useful), doesn’t it bother you just a little that you are fueling a process which limits the playing field without significantly reducing corruption? Ah well, probably not as much as it irritates Independents in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, none of whom get a vote in the primaries, even if they pay their $3.

And the Machines Still Suck

Look, I have harped on this so long I am sick of hearing myself go on about it. So to just sum up: the voting machines are still screwed, and we are going to hear accusations of fraud every single time they are used, from now through next November. You would think people would demand their replacement, if for no other reason than to get the conspiracy theorists to shut up.
Until and unless that happens, you have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that your vote was counted.

Expecting Change, Are You?

I am the last one to tell people to give up and sit quietly. As a nation, however, we cannot even begin to fix the problems we have institutionalized until we recognize them and call them by name. Obviously, these are just a few of the issues with our election system, the few that happen to be highest on the list if you happen to be an Independant voter who really wishes they could vote for a particular Democratic candidate in a back-assward state. But no matter who you are or where your beliefs fall in the political spectrum, if you truly want a democratic system, with the will of the people fully expressed, it is in your benefit to demand change. Not just for yourself, but for every single other person in this country.

Sock Monkeys Unite!! — Photo by Bolobilly on Flickr. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

We have had plenty of evidence for seven years that our electoral system is shot through with flaws. The 2004 Presidential election merely underscored this point. And here we are again, after years of neglect and head-pats, facing an election that no one in their right mind is going to believe accurately reflects the votes cast. No matter who wins the 2008 Presidential election, if the system is not fixed, there will be many who question their right to hold the title of President of the United States. Why, in a country where we hold the democratic process in such high regard, has so little effort been made to ensure that election results are valid? Why have our Congressmen not demanded careful oversight of elections (in order to ensure that no one is unfairly disenfranchised or discouraged from voting), and proof of security and 100% accuracy from the voting machines our tax dollars purchase? For that matter, why have the American people, as a body, not been demanding more from our representatives?

My best guess on the last is that too few people realize that voting irregularities are not just conspiracy theories, they are real and verified fact. The machines we use to cast our votes are insecure and unreliable, and there is no reason they should be. You don’t have to believe that the 2004 election was “stolen” in order to recognize that the system is damaged and must be repaired. It doesn’t matter whether the machines have ever been hacked. They could be, and that is intolerable in a society which claims to base its representation on the will of the people.

Still sound “loony tunes” to you? By all means, don’t take my word for it. There are plenty of well-respected sources to fuel your righteous indignation. Please remember, as you read through the sources listed here, that not only are these your votes being potentially ignored or altered, but also your tax dollars paying for the privilege.

• Maryland’s 2004 independent review of its voting systems The inspecting agent claimed that the Maryland system, comprised of Diebold touch-screen voting machines contains considerable security risks that can cause moderate to severe disruption in an election. Diebold apparently fixed a bunch of machines some time after the election, but they continue to have problems.
• An Information Security Institute (John Hopkins University) report on Diebold’s AccuVote-TS machine found significant and wide-reaching security vulnerabilities. Diebold responded to their findings here, and the Institute rebutted Diebold’s rebuttal here.
• The Democratic National Convention report on voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2004 Presidential election found more than one quarter of all voters in Ohio reported some kind of problem on Election Day, including long lines, problems with registration status and polling locations, absentee ballots and provisional ballots and unlawful identification requirements at the polls, as well as significant problems with the voting machines used.
• Ohio is not the only state with problems. What is listed on this page is only the tip of the iceberg, a representative sample.
• Despite improvement, These problems have not been adequately resolved.
• These problems can be fixed.

No other election year issues really matter if we can’t ensure that every single vote cast is counted. As the numbers come in from the first hand recount of the election season, we are getting a clear demonstration that this is not the case. No election is valid if the results could be compromised. It doesn’t matter if they have been, we should never have to wonder. Please, take a few moments and write your Congressmen and your local board of elections and demand reform immediately.

’nuff said Photo by カランドラカス. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

When I was in highschool, I got tired of being a pariah. I got tired of not having a group where I felt accepted and safe. I got tired of the snarky comments, tired of the ramdom, pointless rules, tired of being attacked in the locker room during gym class. I was sick and tired of having to show up every day only to be bored out of my skull by teachers who in some cases knew less about the subject matter they were teaching than I did. I hated almost everyone there, and I would go home and cut my arms with razor blades just for the cathartic experience of watching the blood ooze out. I hatched a scheme with one of my few friends to release anthrax in the hallways. It was a viable plan, but I didn’t go through with it.

I was a “disturbed” kid. One of those kids who doesn’t talk much to anybody, and when they do it is usually just a scathing commentary on the other person’s latest idiocy. I made it a point, every year, to come in the first day and ask questions my teachers couldn’t answer, in order to train them to leave me alone while I read through every class. I skipped school as much as I possibly could, spending my time in rather questionable pursuits. Out of the people I considered friends, several wore black trench coats every day (the rest wore thick glasses and Ramones t-shirts). I toted around a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook and hated everyone, including myself.

I spent my off-time setting things on fire, watching gory horror movies, having unprotected sex with boyfriends, and reading avidly everything from Romantic Poets to Robert Anton Wilson. I listened to The Cure in a darkened bedroom and tested how close I could get my hand to a candle flame. And I wrote, a lot. I wrote about voices screaming in my head (I heard them, and if you have not ever had the experience, count yourself lucky). I wrote about suicide and murder, rape and chaos. I wrote graphicly about how I would love to dismember the prom queen, the quarterback, and whomever had tried to beat me up that week. I wanted to write about my sense of impotence, the injustice of being an intelligent person with no recourse to enact their ideas, and the futility of trying to be taken seriously, but I didn’t have the words. When the anger and pain got to be too much, I would turn back to the razor and the candle and tales of revenge upon which I knew I would never act.

My Mom did haul me to a psychiatrist, but after a few sessions I informed her that that person did not give a damn about my feelings, and it was a waste of money for me to continue. A couple of teachers took an interest in me, and their efforts were of great value when I decided I had had enough. I marched in and announced that I was dropping out. Being an “honor student” had its perks, I suppose, as everyone went into alt and a compromise was quickly arranged: instead of dropping out I would attend a session of summer school to pick up my last English credit, do two independant study projects, and graduate a year early. The previously mentioned teachers volunteered to supervise the projects, and I barreled my way through to graduation. I was sixteen, and finally free. As I suspected, life was a lot better on the outside of those walls.

I can write all of this now, because I am 31 years old and protected by the freedoms granted by the first amendment of the Constitution. I have to wonder what would happen if I had the misfortune to be born in 1990. Would I have gone to jail?

Of course it is apparent that not all kids will take out their angst only on themselves. Not every scheme for mass destruction is contained forever within the skull which hatched it. Kids can get guns, and with those guns they can unleash a version of hell which brings the survivors into their own, impotent fury. We do have to take these things into consideration.

But turning a kid over to the cops for a creative writing essay is fear-induced hysteria at its worst. It’s not going to help the kid in question, it will only serve to make him angrier. It is not going to stop other kids from killing, it is just going to ensure they don’t write down their plans and hand them in for a grade. It is a quick and dirty solution that only exacerbates the problem. If we want to stop these horrors from continuing to devestate our schools, we have to start considering why they would happen in the first place. There is a pattern, though the profiling attempts by various organizations are counterproductive at best. The perpetrators are typically described as intelligent, and are inevitably socially marginalized. They have often been subjected to bullying and abuse. They just can’t seem to find their place in a system that they just can’t get out of.

Let’s start by contemplating the case of a subject who displayed many of the characteristics which might indicate a propensity for mass violence, but never acted on those inclinations: me.
What was the crucial factor in my decision to direct my violent impulses inward, rather than outward? There is, of course, the genetic predisposition factor which cannot be entirely ruled out, but we cannot control that, and what we are interested in here is the potential for decreasing the probability of another school shooting. Looking at controllable factors, then, we come to rest on two which seem significant: responsibility/freedom ratio, and validation.

Responsibility/Freedom Ratio

There is no way of underestimating how little freedom most kids are given. They have no legal rights, even while they face significantly more legal consequences. Parents may attempt to teach responsibility to their children, in the form of an increasing chore list or accountability for grades, but will not even grant their kids the right to make their own choices about their bodies (“No, you cannot dye your hair blue!”). Consequences for misdeeds are often in random proportion to the misdeeds, themselves. A kid might find themselves grounded for a month in response to dying their hair, while a report of bullying another kid may be met with a fifteen minute talk. What is needed is a steady increase of real responsibility along with a proportionate increase in personal freedom.

In my particular case, the impotence and idiocy of the school system was balanced by a home life where I was expected to behave in a mature and compassionate manner to those around me. The friends I brought home were deeply wounded people, many escaping from nightmarish homelives of their own. They were welcomed into my home, on the condition that each one of them made a contribution proportionate to the amount of time they spent there. For my part, it was made clear again and again that I brought them there, and both their well-being and their behaviour was, therefore, at least partly my responsibility. If I was cruel and thoughtless to a friend, it was never overlooked, and my mother made damned sure I understood what effect my actions had. If we ate all the food in the ‘fridge, we experienced first hand the consequences of our actions (like the night the can of calf brains disappeared and no one realized it until after we had eaten dinner). Each one of us misbehaved on a regular basis, but there were lines we did not cross, because we all felt some responsibility for the small community we had created. No one wanted to cause hardship for the others.

In exchange for the responsibility we were given, we were allowed a proportionate amount of freedom, far more freedom than most kids. We could discuss anything, openly and without fear of reprisal. Over the years both alcohol and drugs came into our home, and were allowed to exist, so long as no one seemed to be suffering as a result of their use. Our choices in music, movies, and reading material were our own. Sexual relations were permitted, although lectures on safe sex were frequent. Curfews were negotiable. We all pushed even the loose parameters we were given, on occasion, but no one wanted to lose the community we had created, and so infractions were slight.

In applying this on a larger scale, we might look to communities such as Summerhill and other “free schools”, where children are given the freedom of self-governance, along with the weight of that responsibility. In a system where the kids, themselves, are made responsible for the maintenance of their community, we do not in fact find life-size reenactments of “The Lord of the Flies”. Instead, these environments have long histories of creating stable, constructive communities where bullying is quickly confronted and dealt with and the entire student body feels a sense of attachment and dedication to itself.

Validation

The other significant factor in my not winding up on the evening news was the fact that my feelings were validated. My mother, and those remarkable teachers mentioned earlier, did not dismiss my claims that I was being forced to serve time for crimes I never committed. They admitted that I had no rights, empathized with my sense of powerlessness, and confined their comfort to assurances that I would be out soon. Far more valuable than just being told I was loved, I was informed that I was a person worth existing, that my place in the world was just as important as theirs. They listened to my assessments of the insanity around me, and responded as sincerely as they would have had the same claims been made by an adult. While it didn’t make the nightmare of public schooling disappear, it did on crucial occasions make it bearable, just to hear “Yes, you’re right. That is the stupidest policy I have ever heard of. I am on your side.”

Kids are not stupid, and they deserve to be taken seriously. Every time someone says to them that their feelings are invalid, it increases their sense of frustration. None of us are so far removed from our own childhoods that we cannot place ourselves back in our sixteen-year-old shoes and remember just how the world looked from there. It takes only a moment to say that we can see it through their eyes.

The Big Picture

We cannot avert future tragedy by simply removing every child who looks as if they might pose a risk. Many who appear deeply disturbed on the surface will never act out their distress by taking up arms against those around them. Some who might be inclined to do so will never show any signs until the day they appear to take their starring role. Clearly, attempts to set up metal-detectors and random searches at schools are not fixing the problem. Imposing adult legal penalties on minors, overreacting to minor indications (such as wearing specific apparel), and labeling violent content in video games and movies isn’t “fixing” the problem. We are fools if we do not think the issues run deeper.

If we are going to end school violence, we must overhaul the foundation of our beliefs about childrearing. We are not going to return to a simple life of vegetable gardens and Bible readings around the family table after dinner. It is just not going to happen. What is necessary, therefore, is for us to fully face why some of our children are so angry, and for us to address the root of those feelings. We can open ourselves up to them and take the time to really get involved with kids who seem extraodinarily unhappy. We can and should work to remove their sense of powerlessness. We can and should accept their feelings and thoughts, and work with them to create a better system. They are talking to us, all the time. In our kitchens over breakfast, in the essays they write for classes they feel are pointless, and occasionally, tragically, with bullets. As adults, it is our responsibility to listen. We must question our own wisdom, our own system, and our own beliefs which have led us to this point. Something is terribly wrong, and it is long past time we should listen to the children.