Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
Politically, I’m very liberal — about as far left as one can go without sliding into Libertarianism.
Pretty sure my face is frozen like this. #debates #debates2016 Absolutely baffled that anyone can think that Trump is even remotely qualified to be President, let alone the nearly 50% of the country that current polls show. It’s just so very sad, depressing, and honestly frightening. (270/366)
We voted!
Here’s where I stand at the moment. (This is long.)
I believe that Bernie Sanders has a lot of good ideas, and — for a time — was doing a lot of good in pulling the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton further to the left of middle than they’d otherwise have been. I sent in my absentee ballot for Sanders in the WA Democratic Caucus, and I voted for Sanders in the (pointless) WA primary. At the same time, I think Sanders stumbled in a number of areas (particularly in his outreach, or lack thereof, to minorities) and then miscalculated by staying in the race too long and not conceding. What he ended up doing was mobilizing and encouraging the far-far-left, our corollary to the far-far-right, existing at the point where the two extremes of the political spectrum are so close in fanaticism that they risk bending the spectrum into a circle and meeting at the far side.
I don’t believe Sanders ever had a real chance at winning the Presidency, and he certainly wouldn’t now, even if by some bizarre set of circumstances he actually got the nomination. No matter how much I support his ideas and ideals, no matter how much I think we should be working towards them — and, generally speaking, I do — I don’t believe that it would have happened, even if he was able to become President. There simply would have been too much resistance from Congress and much of the American populace for the drastic, sweeping changes he was proposing for them to have gone through (look at what Obama wanted to do with health care versus what he was able to, and how much resistance there still is to that small, imperfect step towards actually ensuring that everyone in this country has the health care they should).
I think that Sanders will continue to do what he has been doing for years, working to promote his Democratic Socialist ideals and trying to pull the Democratic party back to the left, and I wish him luck and much success. But he won’t be doing it from the White House.
I don’t think that Clinton is perfect — but neither do I believe that she is the scheming, lying, backstabbing, crooked caricature that a depressing number of people seem to think she is, thanks to years of Republican attacks. I think she is a marvelously successful, effective, and savvy politician, who has had a long career during which she’s done things that I disagree with, but has also done a lot of good. I expect this will continue if she gets into office — no big surprise there, because that’s really the best that can be expected of anyone who gets into that office. I think Obama is far and away the best President this country has had in my lifetime, and he and his administration have done a number of things that I find questionable or strongly disagree with; that’s simply the reality of the office. Besides, Clinton has been attacked and investigated for years (decades), over and over again, for all sorts of reasons (some more reasonable than others), and not once have any of these investigations turned up any reputable evidence that she was doing anything more sinister than being a politician.
I don’t believe that the primaries and caucuses were rigged. I think the Democratic party’s mish-mash of primaries, caucuses, and superdelegates is problematic at best, and would much rather we simply went with open primaries across the board. However, the system we have, such as it is, worked as intended, even if many people don’t like the intent. Independents not being allowed to vote in the Democratic primary isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, even if it’s a feature you disagree with. While I haven’t done a deep dive into the reports, it looks like the DNC emails are a lot of fuss over little actual substance; since the organization’s goal was to select the candidate with the best chance of winning the Presidential election, showing favoritism to Clinton over Sanders (especially as it became more and more clear that he simply didn’t have the popular support of the American people) isn’t corruption or conspiracy, it’s doing their job. They could likely have done that job better in many ways, but it’s not a scam.
I’m far more concerned by the very strong possibility (perhaps even probability at this point) that the DNC email dump is an attempt by collusion between Putin (and/or his administration) and Wikileaks (an organization I have serious issues with, given its support for Milo Yiannopoulos, that it’s headed by an accused rapist avoiding extradition on said rape charges, and its willingness to doxx innocent bystanders in its information dumps) and possibly the Trump campaign or Donald Trump himself. Basically, it looks very strongly like this was an organized attempt by a foreign state (Russia), possibly in collusion with the Republican party’s candidate himself or his campaign, to influence our election — and I find that much more troubling than the content of the emails themselves.
I respect, understand, and sympathize with many of the concerns of those who look seriously at or support third party candidates. I fully support supporting candidates from outside of the two primary parties, have no problems with those who vote for them, and it’s entirely possible I’ll be voting for some of them myself — at non-Presidential levels (local, district, city, county, borough, state, etc.). But I don’t believe that the major systemic changes advocated for by many third-party candidates have even the tiniest, remotest chance of being successful unless we start at the bottom and work up. Like it or not (and many don’t, and that’s fine), the “revolution” isn’t going to happen. A third-party candidate is simply not going to come out of nowhere and take the Presidency. Third-party candidates can be elected and start making differences at local levels (and a few have started, at least in the Seattle area), and that needs to happen so that they can build their base and support and work their way to the Presidency. That stands a chance, and we collectively should be putting more effort and support toward these candidates when we feel that they’re in line with our goals. But “cutting the head off the snake” just isn’t a viable political strategy at the national level.
I am extremely concerned that the current state of the non-Republican parties (Democratic party plus independents, third-parties, etc.) is such that Trump stands a depressingly and frighteningly high possibility of actually being elected as President. Generally speaking, the Republican party is extremely good about unifying behind their candidate and mobilizing their voters, while the non-Republican parties consistently fall apart in this respect. Idealism is all well and good; idealism at the expense of reality is dangerous. The current fractures in the Republican party are unusual, and while they make for good entertainment, I don’t for a moment believe that they’ll really split the Republican vote apart the way that non-Republicans have a tendency to do. As a whole, Republicans believe that a candidate who is imperfect but is more in line with their beliefs than the Democratic nominee is the better choice; meanwhile, there are a disturbing number of non-Republicans who believe that a candidate who is imperfect but is more in line with their beliefs than the Republican candidate still isn’t good enough.
I would love to vote for a candidate who in every way espoused every belief I have and hold dear. But if such a candidate existed (and none ever has) and I knew that no matter how much I liked their stance there was no real chance of winning, they wouldn’t get my vote, especially when there’s even the slightest chance that someone like Trump might win. I’ll support them as much as I can — as I said above, I supported Sanders in the early months of his campaign, and I still think that he has a lot of good ideas and that he should continue working for them however he can — but generally, I’d much rather have an imperfect Democratic candidate in office than a Republican candidate, and that’s particularly true this time around.
Generally speaking, Republicans don’t scare me. I disagree with many of their viewpoints, but the vast majority of them are at least reasonable people. But the current incarnation of the Republican party has been co-opted by the far-right wing, and preys on fear, sexism, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and general hatred of anything other than straight white male. In many ways, Trump himself doesn’t even really scare me (though he comes closer than any other major Republican candidate ever has), but the fact that he’s tapped into such a strong vein of hatred and fear that he’s actually been able to capture the Republican nomination does scare me. His followers scare me. I don’t really believe he’s any more able to get many of his wilder promises enacted than Sanders would be. But those that he and a Republican controlled congress would be able to enact would likely be disastrous; beyond that, his being elected would be even more of a call for the worst of our society to make their prejudices known in visible and often violent ways than we’ve seen yet with his candidacy and nomination.
I’ve been very pleased to have seen the great strides forward in tolerance and acceptance over the course of my lifetime, and I fear that we’re on the precipice of losing much of that progress. I have too many friends, family, and loved ones who stand a very real chance of being adversely affected by a Trump Republican presidency. I’m very saddened by seeing people who I agree with in many respects declaring that they’d rather risk Trump than vote for Clinton — especially as most of those who think along these lines are those who have the privilege (be it racial, economic, sex or gender identity, health, or any other sort of privilege) to not have to worry about actually being seriously affected by whatever might happen under a Trump presidency. There’s a real blindness here, whether willful or unconscious, to the very real possible effects of a Trump presidency on people who don’t have the privileges and resources that they and many others (including myself) do.
I will happily, willingly, and uncompromisingly be voting for Clinton in the general election. I understand that many won’t be able to vote for her happily, willingly, and uncompromisingly — but I do hope that you’ll at least vote for her, even if you grumble while doing so.
(That said, if you can’t, and if you vote for someone else, that’s entirely your right, and I won’t say you shouldn’t. But if Trump ends up in office and you complain about his policies, I reserve the right to cast some serious side-eye your direction.)
(And if you’re one of those who simply won’t vote? As far as I’m concerned, you have no right to complain about the direction this country goes. None. And I will never apologize for holding that particular view.)
Got my @cah @cardsagainsthumanity Donald Trump Bug-Out Bag today! All sorts of emergency supplies in case of electoral disaster. I’m ready for the Trumpocalypse! #cah #cardsagainsthumanity #gasmask #seeds #foodration #harmonica #whistle #flashlight
Had a #nobillnobreak Periscope feed running in the background all day. Happy to see it happening, proud of all the Dems supporting it (from WA and otherwise), sad that it took this long and this many deaths to start seriously fighting agains the NRA-controlled Repubs. I wish we had a better solution than #noflynobuy, since the no-fly list is a frightening mess, but it’s long past time to have the conversation. #holdthefloor (174/366)
This is one of the very few times when I’ll actually agree that my vote truly does not matter — and yet, I’m still voting. Because that’s part of participating. Even when it seems silly. (126/366)
Well, here’s a ridiculously useless ballot. WA chooses by caucus, so the Democrat side of the primary is pointless, and the only Republican candidate still running is Trump. What a waste. That said, I’ll still do it. Just…because, I guess. As long as the state has to spend money on this foolishness, I might as well give them something to do.
An excerpt from a post by Sofia Ali-Khan on Facebook, the whole thing should be read as well:
Out yourself as someone who won’t stand for Islamophobia, or will stand with Muslims—there is an awful lot of hate filling the airways, and there are an awful lot of people with access to the media and/or authority stirring the pot about Muslims. Please help fill that space with support instead. Post, write, use your profile picture or blog to voice your support.
I can tell you that in addition to the very real threat to their civil and human rights that Muslims are facing, we are dealing with a tremendous amount of anxiety. While we, many of us, rely on our faith to stay strong, we are human. This is not an easy time. What you do will mean everything to the Muslim Americans around you. Thank you for reading and bless you in your efforts.
One of the friendliest, most genuinely pleasant students I got to know here at CWU is Muslim. He graduated with his BA in Law and Justice last year, and is now working on his master’s degree. While an undergraduate, he was involved in several campus clubs reaching out to underprivileged and minority students. Now, he works with young people at a local juvenile detention facility. Just yesterday, he was here with a small group of them, as he has been every couple weeks this quarter, bringing them in to our department to meet and speak with community figures as part of the kids’ rehabilitation measures. The dedication and care he showed as a student and shows now as a counselor and leader is truly inspiring.
There are always a number of international Muslim students at CWU, mostly from Saudi Arabia, here learning English and pursuing American academic degrees. While I don’t often work directly with them (though my wife does, and has a lot of fun working with them as they learn English), many of their classes are held in the building where I work, so I see them quite frequently. It’s fun to see them talking and laughing, not just in Arabic among themselves, but frequently in English as they speak with the Korean and Chinese students who are also part of our international programs. I’ve often received very pleasant greetings and smiles from the men and women both — and, yes, sometimes I can only see the women’s smiles in their eyes, as the rest of their face is covered, but the smile still shows through.
And so often these days, I worry about what these students must think of us. How often they worry about their own safety. How often they’re the victim of attacks, subtle or overt, verbal, non-verbal, or physical. How frightening it must be for them to be here, trying to learn, to improve their lives, to experience life in another country, to make friends and expand their world, all while knowing that so much of this country fears and hates them because of the actions of a small group of extremists who don’t speak for the majority.
I am # standingwithmuslims . I condemn Islamophobia and hate speech. And I’m greatly saddened that so many people who profess to love this country are so scared that they’re so willing to abandon many of the core concepts that this country is built on.
Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!
The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.
That’s the situation of the “black lives matter” movement. Culture, laws, the arts, religion, and everyone else repeatedly suggest that all lives should matter. Clearly, that message already abounds in our society.
The problem is that, in practice, the world doesn’t work the way. You see the film Nightcrawler? You know the part where Renee Russo tells Jake Gyllenhal that she doesn’t want footage of a black or latino person dying, she wants news stories about affluent white people being killed? That’s not made up out of whole cloth — there is a news bias toward stories that the majority of the audience (who are white) can identify with. So when a young black man gets killed (prior to the recent police shootings), it’s generally not considered “news”, while a middle-aged white woman being killed is treated as news. And to a large degree, that is accurate — young black men are killed in significantly disproportionate numbers, which is why we don’t treat it as anything new. But the result is that, societally, we don’t pay as much attention to certain people’s deaths as we do to others. So, currently, we don’t treat all lives as though they matter equally.
Just like asking dad for your fair share, the phrase “black lives matter” also has an implicit “too” at the end: it’s saying that black lives should also matter. But responding to this by saying “all lives matter” is willfully going back to ignoring the problem. It’s a way of dismissing the statement by falsely suggesting that it means “only black lives matter,” when that is obviously not the case. And so saying “all lives matter” as a direct response to “black lives matter” is essentially saying that we should just go back to ignoring the problem.
TL;DR: The phrase “Black lives matter” carries an implicit “too” at the end; it’s saying that black lives should also matter. Saying “all lives matter” is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to.
(NOTE: This was originally a Facebook post.)
I just did a quick check, and of my 509 friends on Facebook, a full 124 of them have used Facebook’s little profile picture tool to rainbow-ify themselves. A further 13 have some other form of rainbow-themed profile picture that I feel confident ascribing to recognition and support of LGBTQ+ pride and marriage equality.
That works out to 137 of 509, or 27% of my Facebook friends who are publicly displaying their support for full equality, regardless of sexual orientation. That[‘s a huge percentage, even for an admittedly self-selected group of contacts, most of whom are highly likely to share my general beliefs. (And to be clear, I’m not at all claiming that those who haven’t changed their profile picture don’t support this cause; I’m not equating lack of rainbows to lack of support, just looking at those who have chosen to do this).]{.text_exposed_show}
::: {.text_exposed_show}
So, two immediate thoughts: