Why I Hate Election Season

It's that most corporate time of the year.

Election season. It's that most wonderful time of the (four) year(s). That time that turns friends into enemies, enemies into heroes, and every apathetic asshole you've ever met into an expert on domestic and foreign policy. Forget Christmas, Black Friday, or Hallween, there is nothing more spectacular this time of year as the well choreographed performanes we see on TV. Election season, the time of the year that Big Brother makes us cookies, freshly baked each day and topped with a sugary layer of frosting that reads, "You matter, [your name]". Ah, election season. How I adore you.

Go ahead, tell me I am wrong, but I will never stop dimissing the importance of the election and looking down at you that post insescently about presidential candidates. Fuck this shit. Here is why I hate the election.

It's that most wonderful time of the year when we decide it's ok to ignore the charade of a system that keeps us dancing like puppets to the beat of corporate drums.

To criticize the system from which our options slither out like worms baked in the power of moeny becomes taboo. To speak up against the importance we grant to a single presidential candidate who's role is more that of an image of a country than it is political, and who's decisions are simply the funneling of political shit in a direction that might be less bad than another becomes harmful. I see it go down all the time, on facebook and in real life, that the moment someone re-directs our attention to the flawed system within which we are operating, they are silenced by cries of "do you know what's at stake!" and "it's our system, for better or for worse!". The glow of TV screen during presidential debates, the lulling voices of speeches and empowering cries of crowds, the red, white, and blue so bright that it blinds - this, my friends, is what gives us this collective amnesia. Swept up by the crowd, we join the lies which we should be fighting. But, this, my friends, is not the time of the year to forget the system that keeps us chained. In fact, we should be screaming louder than ever, should be standing on the rooftops shouting to the skies. Fuck Romney, Fuck Obama, and fuck anyone that dares believe that there can be somethign good about a politician. No, I will not buy into your lies of what matters. Becouse nothing matters as much as shattering the foundations on which systematic oppression and torture is built. I will not grow silent about the prisons and lies in which we live because it's election season. I will grow louder, so hear me roar.

It's that most wonderful time of the year when we turn communities into constituencies and accept tokenizing marginalized groups so that some guy can win a popularity contest.

Four years we sit in the shadows, with "marginalized" meaning that no one cares, and suddenly they throw these words out as casually as Mardigras beads. It's like buying entire communities with fistfulls of pennies. LGBT for Obama, Latino for Obama, Women for Obama. Is it really no surprise that we don't see Pakistanis for Obama or Anti-Assimilationist Radical Queers for Obama? Because we are just targets on the path a victory, just puppets that lift liars on our shoulders. Forget the individuals we are inside, the battles we fight to survive, the differences between us that make us into rainbows. Election season means we suddenly matter, but only as faceless crowds who's votes work in unison. I am not your constituency, and I am not monochrome. There is depth to each of us and I will not let politicians forget that so that they can win Homecoming King. I will not change myself to fit your homonormative mold so that your cries of victory speak straight at me. And I will not pretend that just because some candidate has done a little good for my community, that that same candidate is not also doing so much to hurt it. I will stand my ground as an individual, as radical and (gender)queer, as an ally to my comrades who's lives are being destroyed by your candidate.

It's that most wonderful time of the year when we suddenly forget the privileges that make voting possible, and conflate them with rights, and responsibilities.

Voting is a privilege. I repeat, voting is a privilege. I will say it again, voting is a privilege, and not everyone has it. No, not everyone over the age of 18 who's a US citizen has equal access to the privilege of voting. And if you disagree, you best leave my life now. It's so easy, on college campuses, to throw out those words: "everyone should vote", "everyone should vote", "everyone should vote". But not everyone can. Those people with clipboards registering voters? They aren't everywhere. That information about where to vote? Not  always available. Transportation? Neither. Employers who give time off to vote like they're supposed to? Ha, like employers follow laws! Even if one is able to access the polls, the amount of work one must put into it is not equal. To do so easily is a privilege. The amount of time necessary to research the cause, to decide on a candidate, to know what's really going on is a lot, and requires resources that are not distributed evenly. Voting is a privilege that not everyone has. And, even if you do dare call it a right, there is no way that it is also a responsibility. You're nothing short of a scumbag if you dare say that voting is equally a responsibility for all, despite the fact that some people have to sacrifice so much more in order to vote. It's not equal. It's not fair. It's not a responsibility. And, if you take it as far as to say that someone who doesn't vote loses their right to complain and "bitch about it", like I so often hear, even though those for whom voting is most difficult have more reasons to complain about so much? Well, we should just stop talking.

It's that most wonderful time of the year when compromise is praised and to ignore significant issues is considered the ideal.

No, I will not compromise. No, I will not sacrifice. No, I will not simply overlook the issues that this election is overlooking. Oh, how often I hear it, to vote for the lesser of two evils, the candidate that's marginally better, to ignore so much for some small gain. How often people dismiss third-party votes, votes for those candidates that do not promote drones to the Middle East or abuses against protesters domestically. Now, there are valid reasons to vote for a candidate that's far from good (I did, in fact, vote Obama in this election). But that doesn't mean everyone else should - and that doesn't mean everyone else can. It makes me sick to think I voted for someone who is killing innocent people in Pakistan - but, for someone else, casting that vote could be more than just making them sick; it could be triggering; it could be impossible. There is no reason that I, or they, should compromise drone wars for abortion rights. There is no reason we should remain silent about what an awful person our current president is, and instead sidestep the issues he is sidestepping. This time of the year, we should grow louder. We should grow more vocal. And we should let our hate flood over politicians more than ever before. Instead, we grow silent. We grow positive. We shout "support". I do not support what our politicians are doing. I do not support institutionalized murder. I do not support Obama, I hate Obama and the evil he commits. And you should, too.

It's that most wonderful time of the year when everyone becomes holier-than-thou with their super special sparkly votes that nothing else matters anymore.

Elections take up so much room. Just look at my facebook feed in the last few months. It's flooded by pros and antis, with videos and infographics and debate quotes. And we praise it. We pet ourselves and our friends on the back for reblogging that thing about Mitt Romney is evil. We congratulate those over-election invested peers of our for "taking politics seriously". Even offline, I can't walk from class to class without collecting a flier on Amendment 64 and a thousand inquiries as to whether I support Obama (I'm even running out of clever responses). Elections become the foreground of our lives. And it's not that I necessarily think elections shouldn't matter, or that everyone should refrain from voting. I am not even saying we should talk less about it - in fact, we should be talking more, much more, about the faults in our system and the issues that both candidates agree on or ignore. But that's exactly it - we're not talking about that. Instead, we are talking about that one miniscule bit of our lives, and letting it overshadow everything else that we are dealing with, and that's going on every day. Hint: your vote probably doesn't matter. And, believe it or not, direct action and real lifestyle changes do matter. Projects that have been set in motion and continue existing fade away to the background in favor of promoting or insulting candidates. Personal changes seem unnecessary when you are such a fantastic politically involved voter. And this is all a load of shit. Because other things matter so much more. So shut up with your election, shut up with you voting, and shut up with your candidate. Focus on something real that you can do today to help someone's life. Focus on real issues that are hiding on the background. And clear the area so that real change can still remain on our radars, even during the time of this ultra special election.

Left-leaning quasi-social libertarian.

aka My Political Identity, Part II.  Here is my original post on the topic.  I've changed since then, so here's another post on politics.

It's impossible for me to talk about my political identity without discussing my political background.  Doing so would probably lend me to more criticism and misunderstanding then I think I deserve, especially from the far-left folk I care most about.

My family is primarily Libertarian, though they vote Republican because they prioritize economic issues over most social issues.  Their perspective is such for really good reason.  My family is from the Soviet Union.  I've been taught the horrors of a Communism and Socialism since I was a young child.  One story particularly sticks out.  My mom recalls sitting in a classroom as her teacher spoke of the merits of Communism.  The teacher told her of how, when the country is Communist, she would be able to enter a store and pick up anything she needs without worrying about money.  My mom glanced at her worn shoes, thinking of how she could use a new pair, and how great Communism would be, because then she'd be able to do so.  Later, she realized that, if she was shown this store, she'd grab more than just the one pair of shoes that she needs, because that's human nature.  Another story that has always shocked me was an anecdote about how med-school required students to talk a semester off to work on a farm due to government policies.  Such tales have made me very critical of leftist thought.

Both of my parents are immigrants who built their lives from nothing, and are now upper-middle class.  My mom is a doctor who immigrated as a single mother of two children, lived for a while with an income of zero and on welfare, but succeeded in passing the necessary exams and pursuing a career as a neurologist in the United States.  Although she was lucky that she had already completed med-school in Russia, become an MD in the US was not an easy process: she spent months reading medial texts and looking up every other word in the dictionary because she had never used English medical vocab before.  My stepdad started his first enterprise when he was sixteen years old and an international student in Detroit.  Although he never earned a college degree, he now owns a very successful small business that he started.  Thus, the spirit of enterprise and praise of fiscal independence has always been important in my family, and fiscally conservative views were always viewed in a positive light.

Thus, I am primarily libertarian.  With a few exceptions, I have liberal social views and conservative political views.  My exceptions are as follows:

1. I am uncertain about my views on abortion, except in cases where the life of the mother (or the infant?) is in significant danger.  PLZDONTKILLME, I just have yet to find a convincing argument for the morality of terminating a pregnancy that doesn't also imply the morality of infanticide, the killing of certain mentally disabled folk, or the killing of other living people.  I am fairly certain, though, that abortion should be legal, even if it is immoral, because of the right to property.
2. I am not a proponent of an open-border immigration policy.  I am an immigrant from overseas, and my family is very anti-illegal immigrant.  I don't share their views, either, and I believe I am rather independent when it comes to my views on immigration, although I agree with Democrat perspectives rather than Republican ones.  I completely disagree withe Republican techniques, such as the patrolling of borders and the deportation of individuals.  Patrolling the borders really doesn't do anything other than prevent the endanger the lives of people and destroy border communities.  Similarly, deporting undocumented individuals does nothing to solve the overall problem, especially when explicitly racist systems like the one in Arizona are created.  I think there's no doubt that the government and business are at fault for the existence and the persistence of undocumented immigration form Mexico.  In the past, businesses would bus Mexican folk to the US because they needed cheap labor.  These businesses continue to hire undocumented immigrants very low wages.  Unfortunately, our government discriminates way more against immigrants than it does against businesses, and there are no systems in place to prevent businesses from hiring undocumented folk.  If these systems were put in place, undocumented immigration would become impractical, and the demand for labor would become obvious, and legal systems of temporary and permanent immigration from Mexico would be set up.  These systems would also assure that immigrants will be paid legal wages, and the whole system will be better for everyone on both sides of the argument.  (All this being said, I do approve of the Dream Act.)
3. While the former two represent my exceptions to socially liberal views, this one is my exceptions to fiscally conservative views (although this does border on a social issue, as there's no clear line between social and economic questions).  I think the government, ideally state and federal, rather than local governments, should do everything they can to fix racial segregation in education and improve schools for poor folk, especially poor people of color.  This is a huge problem that cannot be addressed at local levels, and there's no excuse that such horrifying differences in education continue to exist today!

I say I am left-leaning not because my views stray that far from a libertarian perspective, but because I am very radically left-leaning on my political views, while I am more moderate, although still right-leaning, on my economic views.  Also, social views typically matter to me more than conservative views, so I tend to vote Democrat.

By quasi-social I hope to indicate the distinction between social- and individuals- libertarianism (and, as a result, social- and individual- anarchy).  While individual libertarianism is based on individualistic, objectivist philosophies, primarily that of Ayn Rand, social libertarianism (and anarchy) is about communal, supportive environments with limited government.  Although I definitely prefer social libertarianism to individual libertarianism, I hesitate to say I am a social libertarian, because this often implies libertarian socialism, which often implies social anarchy.  Although I think social anarchy is awesome, although I sympathize with socially anarchist perspectives, although I think social anarchists are doing more today to help oppressed people than anyone else in today's society, I am not a social anarchist.  Rather, I believe a socially anarchist society can be best achieved or approached not through leftist practices, but through libertarian and fiscally conservative measures.  I do, though, envy the community anarchists tend to have. -sigh-

To the radical anarchist asking a Republican to dance - Andrea Gibson, Say Yes (I think).

Precious, and why it struck me as incredibly racist and classist.

Last night, with high expectations, I finally watched Precious; and, oh, was I disappointed. In fact, the film struck me as extremely racist and classist, and it made me very, very angry.

Spoilers follow, though I wouldn't be afraid. You pretty much know what to expect before getting into the film, one of those tales of a difficult life but the possibility of happiness and success.

Precious lives in Harlem with her single mother (played by Mo'Nique, who is such a good actress, that she almost made the movie worth watching). Stereotypes about poor people of color and people on welfare prevail through the entire film. Precious' mother is a monster: all day, she sits in front of her TV, watching game shows, while her daughter cooks her meals. She lives entirely on welfare, lies to the welfare officers, tells her daughter not to bother get an education, because it will never help her along the way. I have no doubt that people like that exist, that families like that are real, and they are awful, but I've heard this story plenty of times. It's the story we hear when we petition for less welfare and create programs like New York's WEP. Where's the story of my mother, who is only a successful doctor today, saving the lives of others, because the help of Washington state's generous welfare program? The story that could help other poor, single, working mothers along the way? Nope, we never hear that story. The only stories we hear are stereotypes.

Racist stereotypes are everywhere, too. Not just the obvious stuff (Precious steals an entire bucked of fried chicken), which actually might be somewhat realistic, but all of Precious' problems are blamed on the black family in which she lives. Her mother throws around insults, calling every white woman a "white bitch". On the internet, I've read several complaints by people insulted by the constant repetition of "white bitch". Not once does the film show that, perhaps, a poor black family is justified in being angry at white people in a white supremacist culture. Instead, the white people (and fair-skinned) middle-class people, in true Freedom Writers fashion, are the heroes, rescuing her from her terrifying family situation. Please, can you tell me a story I haven't heard before?

Worse even than the racist and classist stereotypes is that the movie pretends that the structure allows for success.  Precious goes to an alternative school where a loving teacher who's there because she "loves to teach" leads a class of maybe six kids in a beautiful classroom in a hotel, and gives Precious the one-on-one attention she needs to learn how to read, to dream of a brighter future. How does she get into this program? Through the help of her white principal. Clearly, children with such family circumstances as Precious require better schools than children with better family environments, but they seldom have the opportunity to receive such help. Instead, the environment of public schools in poor communities of color is significantly worse than that of middle-class suburban schools. Only the first five-or-so minutes of the movie take place in a Harlem public school, and, although somewhat rowdy and crowded, it's presented at overall normal. The building looks intact, the teacher tries to teach, it's the kids who just sit around, make noise, and don't do their homework. Those of you reading my blog recently know that I'm absolutely obsessed with Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. Published in 1991, Kozol goes to New York City public schools during the very time that the film takes place, and gives tear-jerking descriptions of the circumstances in these schools. Precious simply didn't do the truth justice.

I'm still very frustrated. I simply don't know why it's ok for us to hear the same stories over and over again, while ignoring the real problems that are the reason why these stories even happen. Movies like this continue to discourage political and social change that might actually help poor people of color. The typical structure is entirely ignored, while the focus is on special circumstances and individual success stories. I am furious.

My Political Identity

Questioning. Sounds like me, right? Actually, if it was more like me, it would be fluid, but I don't think that counts as a political identity.

I used to identify as libertarian. Socially liberal and economically conservative. As you can imagine, this would follow naturally from my upbringing. My family has experienced first-hand the terrors of the Communist Soviet Union and spoke of them often, and the political leaning of the Soviet Union is on the other side of the spectrum from libertarian. My stepdad is a CEO who started his small business from scratch, my mother is a neurologist who single-handedly worked to become a doctor in the US.  The entrepreneurial, independent spirit is very alive in my family, and this spirit asks for economic independence, rather than government intervention in such matters. Economically conservative. However, my family's political concerns did not include social issues. I figured those out on my own: why would ever make something illegal if it doesn't affect you at all? Socially liberal. I fell in love with libertarian ideas the moment I first learned about them. To me, they seemed like everything the United States stood for: freedom. The government is only there to protect your rights: right to life, right to property. (Here's a 2D political spectrum, with a red dot where I used to place myself).

Recently, I've begun to question this orientation.  I'm impressed by the fact that countries that are considered socialist are very healthy, happy countries. Take, for instance Norway, that has the highest Human Development Index, second place in the Global Peace Index, and a 1.0 (meaning full equality) in the Gender Parity Index. So now I'm beginning to wonder: am I wrong? Perhaps socialism - real, balanced socialism, not the corrupt communism I always hear about from personal anecdotes concerning my family's experiences - perhaps it's a good thing.

That being said, I think in politics, I think we often forget the big picture. We continuously bicker - liberal vs conservative, left vs. right, democrat vs republican, omgz-you're-a-communist vs well-you're-a-fucking-fascist. In all reality, our system of government is Socio-Democratic Liberalism. That's the form of government in the US and in Norway, the form advocated by the right and the left. That's really what we're dealing with. Period.

More dimensions, please!

We view the world as a binary.  Either you're A or not-A.  Either you're man or woman, white of a person of color, heterosexual or queer, liberal or conservative, good-looking or ugly, wrong or right.  What a stupid view of the world, a divisive, unfriendly view.  There are so many dimensions to everything.

I will use politics as my first example.  There's more to political views than being liberal or conservative.  It's a spectrum: you could me more or less liberal and conservative than others you know, you could be moderate, or just a little more liberal than conservative.  There's the first dimension, a one-dimensional spectrum that doesn't require you to be one or the other.  Yet that's not enough. On some issues, you may agree with the conservatives, while on others, you may think the liberals are right.  In politics, we are faced with social and economic issues, both of which are very different.  Thus, we have the two-dimensional view of politics, shown above right.  Yet even that's not enough.  About the same time I began exploring political views, I started playing a game called NationStates.  This game brought me an entirely new view of politics, a three dimensional perspective, shown to the left.  This view contains three spectrums: economic, political, and personal freedoms.  Even three dimensions isn't enough.  A true political spectrum would contain every issue, perhaps several possible spectrums for certain issues.  Yet three dimensions is easy for a human mind to understand, and is a great way to view politics.

How about sexuality and gender? The sexuality spectrum, I'm quiet certain, would contain a potential partner's gender, sexuality (I, for example, am very attracted to queer people of any gender), masculinity vs femininity, even a possible fourth dimension of sex.  The gender spectrum could contain gender, masculinity vs. femininity (You could be a feminine man or a masculine woman), perhaps physical sex.  What other factors would lie on these two spectrums? Where else in life do we need a multi-dimensional perspective?

Overall, I'm tired of binaries, and one-dimensional spectrums aren't enough for me, either. Let's change the world.

Within our lifetime, and sooner than you could ever imagine...

Is it possible that we're on a brink of such a major change? That, within our lifetime, and sooner than you could ever imagine, cigarettes will be made illegal, and marijuana will be legalized?

Tobacco is the deadliest drug out there: "more than 400,000 Americans now die of tobacco-related illness per year, making it the leading cause of preventeable death in the US. More than 8 million Americans suffer from at least one serious illeness caused by smoking" (1).
However, unlike many much less deadly drugs, this one is legal!
Just this last month, FDA has received authority over tobacco, a huge change in tobacco regulation.
The first thing the FDA did was ban flavored cigarettes from the market (2).
Now that the FDA has control over such a deadly substance, will they dare keep it on the market for much longer?

Cities and states have begun legalizing medical and recreational marijuana.
Thirteen states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) have legalized medial marijuana (3).
Cities, such as Denver, have legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (4)
In 2003, Seattle pioneered a "lowest priority" initiative, which makes possession of small amounts of marijuana the lowest priority of the police. Today, similar initiatives are found in Oakland, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica, California; as well as Columbia, Missouri; Eureka Springs, Arkansas; ...Missoula, Montana"; Hailey, Idaho; as well as my personal favorites, Boulder and Denver, Colorado ( 5, 6, 7).
Tobacco companies have caught on to the trend and have designated land, time, money, and have even created brand names and marketing campaigns for marijuana products (8).

Without a backup plan, making cigarettes illegal would create a huge dent in the economy. Powerful, wealthy corporations would instantly collapse. The FDA would never dare do that.
However, marijuana could be that backup plan. Tobacco companies would remain strong if marijuana was made legal. They'd be the first ones on the scene, and they are ready to take advantage of marijuana's inevitable legalization.

But what would that change entail?
Which would happen first, would tobacco be made illegal or would marijuana be legalized, or would that happen instantaneously?

Would marijuana sales be enough to keep tobacco companies on top? While the legalization of marijuana would eventually mean a collapse of smaller drug dealers, initially, those drug dealers might actually thrive, especially those that get their pot from sources within the country instead of smuggling them internationally. Pot smokers who never grew before might give it a try. Unlike tobacco, marijuana can be grown in someone's home or in someone's backyard. Additionally, marijuana would become big in the food industry, and perhaps even more popular in that form than as a smoked substance. Though the current structure of marijuana sales will definitely change, would it ever be handed over entirely to large corporations?

Is society ready for such a change? Anti-drug crusaders remain strong, and, despite the popularity of marijuana reform, many Americans remain opposed to its legalization and use, especially for recreational purposes.

Additionally, marijuana is a much different drug from tobacco. Even though cigarette use has recently dropped significantly, it still remains a big part of some aspects of American culture. What will happen to groups of co-workers from all walks of life smoking outside their place of work? How about other types of tobacco use, such as cigars and cigar bars and sheesha and hookah bars? It would be used at different times, in different places, by different people. It will be used more like alcohol than like tobacco, though not exactly like either.

What would the legal age for marijuana consumption, possession, and purchase be? Most places that've legalized marijuana or with lowest priority laws define adult consumption as 21, and that's likely to be the minimum age if marijuana is legalized. Tobacco is the drug that become legal when you turn 18, so, if tobacco is made illegal, no new substance will be permitted until you turn 21. If marijuana is legalized, it's likely to be less available to underage users, similar to how alcohol is difficult to come by in highschool. However, unlike alcohol, marijuana can be grown at home, and can even spread like a weed, so it would probably be more available underage than alcohol is now. How would teenagers react to such a change? Would consumption of more dangerous, illegal drugs go up because those drugs will be easier to find?

Where would we be allowed to smoke pot? Would there be designated pot smoking areas? How about the laws that now concern cigarette smoking in public places? Would pot bars open up, and what would it's culture be like?

Would legalizing marijuana open up the way for legalizing other drugs?

We just might find out within our lifetime, and sooner than we could ever imagine.


Sources:
(1) FDA authority over tobacco: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/fda/
(2) Ban on flavored cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html
(3) States that legalized medical marijuana: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391
(4) Denver legalized marijuana: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-03-pot_x.htm
Lowest priority laws (5) in Maine with a list of cities where it's in effect: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/463/maine_marijuana_lowest_law_enforcement_priority_initiatives (6) in Denver with more cities listed: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/denver-voters-set-lowest-priority-for-cops-pot/?scp=1-b&sq=denver+and+marijuana&st=nyt (7) in Boulder: http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_13450163
(8) Tobacco companies and marijuana: http://www.drugwatch.org/Tobacco_Marijuana_Media.htm (scroll down to "The Tobacco-Marijuana Link")

National Equality March

Last weekend, I went to Washington DC to participate in the National Equality March (Evidence Pic). It was such an amazing trip and a great opportunity.

Going to DC over the weekend wasn't easy. The trip was 30 hours one way. We left Friday afternoon after we decorated our vans. On Sunday at about 2AM we arrived at our hotel. We woke up early Sunday morning, ate breakfast, took the metro to DC, and marched. That afternoon, we left for Colorado. At about 2AM Tuesday morning, we finally arrived. It was a long and tiring trip, but it was definitely worth it.

The march itself was so amazing! It felt so good to be in such an amazing place surrounded by so many amazing people fighting for something that's so important! The official count was 200,000 to 250,000, though the media keeps saying "tens of thousands". The signs, chants, and people impressed me and blew my mind. The speakers were beautiful and touching. Just being in the amazing city of Washington DC was a great experience. I have so much hope for this country. Soon, it will be our chance to shine. The rights we deserve will be ours. There is hope.