Category: Politics (page 1 of 2)

Politics. Rants, issues, etc.

“Is the sad part over?”

Content warning: explicit descriptions of slavery.

As I lie next to Hazel while she falls asleep, I read. I’ve been reading “The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism,” by Edward E. Baptist for several weeks, often as I’m lying next to her.

She does not want to sleep. Ever. She asks me to read it to her. Sometimes I do, when what I’m reading is simply dates and economics and the brutality of the history is hidden. Sometimes I say, “No, this is a sad part,” and she says, “Stop reading! Eek!” and jumps to the end of the bed.

“Is the sad part over?” she asks.

Hazel is three. I do not tell her about the toddlers the slaveholders drowned for not picking enough cotton. I do not tell her about the heads they put on stakes and let rot in the sun as warnings. I do not tell her about families that were intentionally and strategically torn from each other. I do not tell her about the torrents of blood: our origin story.

“No, honey, just wait.”

There is not room in me for anger. Each time the anger wells in me, it turns into mournful keening. It turns into silence because the lamentation is wordless. There is too much and I will myself to focus. I make plans. I read. I send money. I catch myself speaking only in my head, even when others are in the room with me.

And slowly, slowly, I realize that this is because of Hazel.

Alone, I cannot be hurt. I know the cruelty of our culture because it is in me and I have fought it for decades.

I can be hurt, though. Because of her. The banshees that shriek in my mind know that I cannot save her from what is to come. That the problems I thought we could work on to make our country and world better are now on the other side of the mirror. The Obama years, both the good and the bad, now seem like a hallucination.

When they go low, we go high. 


[T]he worst thing about slavery as an experience, one is told, was that it denied enslaved African Americans the liberal rights and liberal subjectivity of modern citizens. It did those things as a matter of course, and as injustice, that denial ranks with the greatest in modern history. But slavery also killed people, in large numbers. From those who survived, it stole everything. Yet the massive and cruel engineering required to rip a million people from their homes, brutally drive them to new, disease-ridden places, and make them live in terror and hunger as they continually built and rebuilt a commodity-generating empire—this vanished in the story of a slavery that was supposedly focused primarily not on producing profit but on maintaining its status as a quasi-feudal elite, or producing modern ideas about race in order to maintain white unity and elite power. And once the violence of slavery was minimized, another voice could whisper, saying that African Americans, both before and after emancipation, were denied the rights of citizens because they would not fight for them. –Baptist

I keep telling people (White people, mostly) to read this book. I read it and am horrified. I am reminded of things I know. I am reminded of things I forgot. I was never taught most of this.

It helps me make sense of things. The cruelty is in America’s bones. It is the secret cost of assimilation for those of us whose families came after the Civil War and came from Europe: to become White, it was necessary to adjust to the particular style of cruelty that we have never reckoned with. The cruelty just morphs into whatever will be culturally tolerated.

My great-grandparents did not have a real understanding of the history of the country they came to. They came to the myth of America. I am much more able to speak to the cultural context of the immigrant, someone fleeing poverty or famine or war, who does not speak English, who is looked upon with suspicion due to their religion–because these are the origin stories of how my family came to America.

But this is not the story of how we became White. It is not the story of how we became American.

I want to take this and make sense of it. Figure out how to cleave the stories (true stories!) of overcoming adversity from what was tacitly accepted in order for that to become a reality.  I want to show all these people in Minnesota who became White how many wheels were set in place to lift us up. I want them to see the manipulation, the way capitalism’s gears have us all in the teeth, that the toxic whiteness that The Bad Man (as we call him here) explicitly invoked in his rallies and tweets to much success is a terrible inheritance that we can–and must–reject. White supremacy will not get working class people better incomes. It only sinks us further into toxicity.

Of course, it is all more complicated than this. I am in pain because I saw actual progress for LGBTQ people over my lifetime. Most Black women I know were disappointed, but their eyes never stop seeing the cruelty of White America–and generation after generation, they see the cruelty of White America directed at their children.

So in the actual election, we were simultaneously let down by the people who were supposed to inform us of the issues, manipulated via algorithms built by technolibertarians in homogenous Silicon Valley, and manipulated through media savviness by (of all countries) Russia.

Still, many White people in our country clearly crave authoritarianism and believe it will only be applied to others. After all, that is what we used to do and he did vow to make us great “again.” How else could you set aside The Bad Man’s lifelong misogyny, sexual assault, and racism? How else could you set aside the actual words he said during the campaign?

There is the keening in my mind again. There is so much to our history. There is so much to our present. There is so much the GOP is willing to do to turn the clock back centuries. The lows are extraordinary, but they are not unimaginable. White America has done this before.

I spend nights worrying. I wonder if something happens to Megan, will our adoption papers mean anything in four years? The night of the election, as she cried and I quietly and obsessively scrolled through Twitter, I said “They can take our marriage, but they can’t take us from each other. We’re ride or die.” It made her laugh for just a moment.

But Hazel. Underneath the keening in my mind I am begging for her to not be taken. Begging for her future. Begging for her to not go through the same trials that I have.

I do not feel comfortable leaving urban areas right now. My eyes are training on White women in the suburbs and my mind growls: which ones of you were okay with this future? With this pain? Have you not learned?

I return to the book, though. I realize that it is I who has not learned. I have not learned in my heart — despite knowing in my head and living through my body — that whiteness is typically prioritized above all other identities. The Bad Man ran an explicitly racist campaign. That did not repulse White women, it drew them (us) in.


Election Countdown: 1 Day

Tomorrow is November 6 and that means tomorrow you’re going to head on over to your polling place and VOTE NO on both amendments on Minnesota’s ballot. Right? Of course you are! Rather than do any counterpoints today, I’ll dwell in the realm of stories. Read day one and the intro here.

Make my mom happy and vote no on the marriage amendment.

This is my mom, who is Catholic. This picture is from my wedding — the one Megan and I had in Boston because we wanted it to be legal and that wasn’t going to happen here. That woman dragged herself across the country for the first time in 30 years and rode out to the arboretum in a wheelchair so she could be at the wedding. I really challenge anyone who is undecided or wavering as a yes vote to tell that woman, who is so visibly happy, that this isn’t personal. That this is just about a ‘definition.’

I have to tell you, even though I would be devastated if MN passes the amendment, Megan and I will still be married. She’s my wife and always will be and there is no amendment in the world that’s going to change that as a lived reality. The amendment endangers us, makes us less safe in the world, but we’re still married because that is the commitment we made to each other and that’s what’s real.

So you’ve got my arguments, you’ve got all the arguments of the great people working to defeat the amendment. Go out there and make my mom happy.

Keep MN’s election system strong! Vote no on voter ID.

I lived in NYC for about 5 years, and voted there in the 2000 election. What a nightmare that was. We had two clunky old machines for my entire precinct, which meant people were waiting for over 2 hours in line to vote. You had to register weeks ahead of time and even if you did, your name might not wind up on the voter rolls. That happened to my neighbor when we went to vote together. If that had happened here, I could have vouched for him and he could have cast a real vote. Instead, he was forced to cast a provisional ballot, so we’re still not sure if his vote was ever actually counted.

I promise you, if there was actual individual voter fraud in Minnesota elections on any sort of profound level — considering how close they’ve been — you would know the stories of each person accused. Remember “lizard people”? I can actually picture the guy’s face in my head and that’s just because he wrote in a joke candidate.

We’ve got a great thing going here, let’s not mess it up.


Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Election Countdown: 2 Days

Two days until November 6 and that means this is day five of reasons you should VOTE NO on both amendments on Minnesota’s ballot. I’ve pretty much used up my scenario creativity, so today I’m going to go with Minnesota elitism (We’re #1! We’re #1!). Read day one and the intro here.

Minnesota is the best, part one: Why voting no on the marriage amendment makes Minnesota awesomer.

I really love Minnesota, and that’s part of what would make it so heartbreaking to see this amendment pass. But I also have a lot of confidence in us: confidence that we may stumble in the dark at times, but we do strive to be better. Don’t get me wrong, I know we’re not unicorn land and that we have our problems, but in my experience there has been a long culture here of both independence and a recognition of interdependence. I think that if Minnesotans keep those things in mind–that we value the individual and we see that we’re stronger together than we are separate–that we can not only set the tone for how we treat LGBT people with a big old NO on this amendment, but we can use this time of reflection to think about how linked we all are and how the success and happiness of everyone else is linked with our own. Making the lives of LGBT Minnesotans harder means making the lives of their families (parents, siblings, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.) harder and it makes life harder for every boy who’s a little too ‘artsy’ and every girl who’s a little too ‘tomboyish’ regardless of who they’ll wind up dating in their futures.

That adds up to a lot of people in this state. We can lead the way and be the first state to say NO to an amendment like this. We can do this. And it will lead to brighter days.

Minnesota is the best, part two: Do we really want to be like these other states?

Minnesota has one of the most awesome sets of voting laws and infrastructures in the country. I’m not kidding. One of the reasons we consistently get such high turnout in elections is that we make it easy for people to vote when they can — and to register at the last minute. Sometimes, this sucks for my personal candidates of choice (those last minute registerers probably gave Ventura the votes to become governor), but that’s okay. The infrastructure is the important part here, the access to voting is the important part here.

Other states, states in which the groups promoting Voter ID have won victories, have terrible voting track records when it comes to managing crowds. Let’s go with just today, how about?

In Miami, the Miami-Dade election department opened from 1-5 p.m. to try to work around a new Florida law that clamped down on early voting. So many people showed up that they shut down.

Thanks to the rabble rousing voters being like “OMG WTF?” they reopened. However, yikes, you’d think a county and state that majorly messed up the 2000 election would have their act together 12 years later. But you’d think wrong.

And then there’s Ohio. This line? Not okay. One great way to suppress votes, especially for people who don’t have a lot of time to spare from work or child care, is to make it take an incredibly long time to vote. If today is an example of what Tuesday will be like in Ohio, they are well on their way.

As I mentioned the other day, the whole in-person voter fraud thing is a whole lot of hogwash, but there are many ways to intimidate people or structurally prevent them from voting. Here’s more info about those: voter caging, lying flyers, deceptive robocalls, felon disenfranchisement, voter ID laws, voter purges, menacing billboards, poll watchers, messing with early voting, and making voter registration more difficult.

Finally, let’s remember that it is not really that long ago that we got most of this voting equality sorted out (and we’re still better than others because a lot of others still suck). Back in 1947, a time when both of my parents were alive, the registrar in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, would only enroll black voters who could produce three registered white voters to vouch for them. And in 1962, when my mom was well into college, the RNC launched “Operation Eagle Eye,” and sent Houston residents false warnings that police would be at polling locations arresting people with outstanding traffic tickets; Latinos in the Rio Grande valley got letters saying “It probably would be wiser to simply stay at home and not go near the voting place on election day, rather than get arrested for interfering with the election judge.”

We’re better than this, right? I sure as hell think so.

I’m also going to plug Megan’s favorite movie here, which is about women winning the right to vote, called “Iron Jawed Angels.” She’s weird. But think about women being jailed, going on hunger strikes, and force fed in jail for trying to secure the right for women to vote just under 100 years ago…this right is too hard won to let people take it away.


Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Election Countdown: 3 Days

Three days until November 6 and that means this is day four of reasons you should VOTE NO on both amendments on Minnesota’s ballot. I have to be honest with you, the reasons the Voter ID people are giving for why voter ID is necessary are so few and far between that I’m having trouble coming up with scenarios to rebut. Yet I soldier on! Read day one and the intro here.

Scenario 1: I might vote yes on the marriage amendment because I’m not super sure about same sex marriage, but I’ve never visited the Minnesota for Marriage (pro-amendment) website.

Please visit it. Visit the Threat to Marriage page right now. But only if you’re straight. If you’re gay, don’t visit it. You will either burst into tears or hurl your computer across the room and you don’t need that emotional pain/financial cost on a pleasant November weekend.

I know I’ve been a little bit jaunty and a little bit informative on these thus far, but I just can’t today. If you have any question of which side you want to align with on this ballot, please read this and consider two things — how it doesn’t make much sense and how truly malicious this group is to people who are LGBT. It’s like even when they’re pretending they ‘hate the sin, love the sinner,’ they can’t shake the poisonous hatred that actually exists in them.

Also, just to be bitchy, they obviously can’t find anyone competent to do their design because that photoshop job on the banner is worse than a 10-year-old’s attempt at the software. Look at the woman’s arm — it’s all bumpy and weird. And her shoulder comes to a point. Anyway.

Their overarching complaints is that suddenly “Marriage will be redefined for everyone.” Which, I guess means that … um … I really am not sure. Will straight people now have to consider marrying people of the same sex? I already pointed out yesterday that no church even has to marry any straight couple that walks through the door, so it’s not that they’d be forced to marry the gays (though they sure imply it). I guess it’s that on a governmental level, if Minnesota’s laws that make same sex marriage illegal get overturned or if they try to write new laws, then same sex people could get married and — I’m just not sure. Something terrible would happen? Because of the word?

Dude, did you know that if you’re not Catholic, you’re not supposed to take communion in a Catholic church? Even if you’re Lutheran? All this “YOUR RELIGION IS IN JEOPARDY” stuff is so not a thing.

However, while technically accurate (the Catholic Charities in Boston did have to choose between discriminating against LGBT people in adoptions or to stop taking government money), they didn’t have to close their doors. We live in a society with all kinds of religions and views and if you’re going to take money from the government, you should be serving all of society. A rape crisis center doesn’t check to make sure you’re liberal and voting for funding for them before they provide you service. The government doesn’t ask you if you’re a libertarian who wanted to cut FEMA before they help fix your hurricane-ravaged neighborhood. I’m not sure why we want to give churches special rights to discriminate.

Okay, I can’t take anymore. I’m sorry. I just went to their Myths & Facts page and read the “Myth: Redefining marriage won’t have an impact on anyone else’s marriage” and now I need to go throw up/cry/try not to hurt my computer. Why are these people so obsessed with the idea of ‘genderless’? You can just hear them gag as they type it. It’s so freakin weird I just can’t handle it.

I love you all, but I think I’ve suffered enough for this countdown on the marriage amendment today. Do you really want to be on that side of history? Please say no.

Scenario 2: The Voter ID site tells me this will actually help disadvantaged populations.

This is a point on their site that I came across this morning and it’s so cynical I just started laughing. The text is below:

Makes Life A Little Easier for Disadvantaged Voters

The voter ID bill will help people who may be having a hard time getting along in society because of a lack of identification by providing ID at no charge. This has the added benefit of enabling people to get work, open bank accounts and participate in other normal functions of society that are impossible without photo ID.

I try to be patient, but this makes me livid. First, it operates on the assumption that people without ID don’t work and it is no small jump to the tired anti-social safety net tropes of leeches on the system. Second, if you want everyone to have an ID and think that this would be good for society, there is no reason to tie that to voting rights. (It’s worth noting that there is a strong strain in libertarianism that would reject a governmental requirement for ID, so I don’t really get this argument in general if you fall on that side of the spectrum. I mean, you want to fight airport scanners, but want the government to track everyone? Weird.)

But let’s talk about banking for a moment. Of those who are “unbanked” or “under-banked,” the most common reason is not because they don’t have an ID, but because they don’t think they have enough money to need a bank account. Want more recent data? View the FDIC’s full report.

That’s kind of a sidetrack, but I want to emphasize that the pro-voter ID group is not actually interested in helping disadvantaged people. More to the point, let’s talk about how many people would be impacted by ID laws. (Source 1, Source 2 )

  • 11% of U.S. citizens (~21 million eligible voters) don’t have government-issued photo ID.
  • They tend to be young people, those without college educations, Latinos, and the poor.
  • 7% of U.S. citizens (~13 million people) do not have ready access to passports/naturalization papers/birth certificates. This means these people cannot easily produce documents proving their citizenship (Side note: I’m not actually sure where my birth certificate is…crap…)
  • Of course this impacts poorer people more. Duh.
  • This also impacts women: only 66% of voting age women have ready access to any proof of citizenship with their current legal name. This has really affected older women who never had a need to prove their names before (contrary to popular belief, not everyone travels on planes, and those non-working, current ID-less people are often senior citizens).
  • In fact, 18% of U.S. citizens over age 65 do not have current government-issued photo-ID

This list really keeps going.

The glib tone of the pro-voter ID organizations really gets to me. In our country, not everyone has the exact same experience, and I understand that if you don’t know people who aren’t just like you that it can blind you to all the complications they have that you don’t have (just like they don’t really know your complications). The fact of the matter is that this issue is not a simple one and the reductive tone of the pro-voter ID campaign should insult the intelligence of all of us. Repeated studies have shown that amendments like these have strong potential to suppress turnout by up to about 2.4% (more in certain populations, and with a general swing towards GOP candidates). Considering voter fraud is at 0.00000001% (see yesterday’s post), I think it’s pretty clear what messes up the electoral system more.


Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Election Countdown: 4 Days

Alrighty people. Four days until November 6 and that means this is day three of reasons you should VOTE NO on both amendments on Minnesota’s ballot. Read day one and the intro here.

Scenario 1: This is not so much a scenario, but an amalgam of arguments you can file under: “But, religion!”

Look, if you or your brethren are super committed to the whole marriage=man/woman/procreation thing, I don’t know that anyone can do anything in four days to really help you. Both of my grandmothers lost their spouses about 40 and 15 years before they died, respectively, and if either of them had decided to marry someone new in their 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s, it would have been weird (because thinking about your elders all smitten is kind of weird), but no one would have been screaming about procreation. But that’s logic and logic has no place in this.

Instead, I’m going to tell you a story.

I was raised Catholic like everyone else in my family and I have something of a secret those of you who were not raised Catholic do not know. We aren’t really raised to know the difference between any of the other Christian denominations. Seriously — you’re all just ‘Protestant.’ In fact (and I’m a little skittish about actually writing this down), priests aren’t super strong advocates of marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics — and I’m not talking interfaith here, I’m talking Episcopalian or Lutheran or whatever.

Why point this out? Well, first off, clergy of any religion have the ability to nix marrying any couple in a given religion. I’ve known Jewish rabbis who won’t perform interfaith marriages either, mostly because they believe those marriages don’t work out in the long run or that the children won’t be raised Jewish. It’s the same deal for Catholics. If they’re not required to marry any opposite sex couple that walks through the door, rest assured there will not be a legal requirement to marry any same sex couple that walks through the door either.

In a very strong respect, this amendment is also an assault on religious liberty. There are a number of denominations/religions that do perform same sex marriages (some church-wide and some at the discretion of individual members of leadership, like bishops), these include: Episcopalians, Lutherans (ELCA), United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Reform Judaism, and Conservative Judaism. I want anyone using a religious argument to think very hard about whether they want the government or more dominant religions getting mixed up in their own sacraments (or whatever).

Of course, and this needs to be mentioned even though it doesn’t sway anyone, but there are lots of agnostics, atheists, and unaffiliated people out there and I think it’s ridiculous to tell any of us we can’t be married legally because of religion even though none of our opposite sex marriages have anything to do with churches. (That number is currently around 16% of the U.S. population, so it isn’t small potatoes.)

Finally, and I’m particularly angry with the Catholic hierarchy about this, but the religion of my childhood seems to have forgotten how forcefully Catholic candidates for office had to advocate for the separation of church and state just to fend off fears that the Pope would control U.S. policy. There was actual discrimination against Catholics in this way — but the current leadership of the Church is making that ridiculous idea an actual reality, which is weird and uncomfortable. Take a moment to listen to or read through JFK’s famous 1960 speech in Texas. Oh, hell, I’ll just post in part of it below:

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured–perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Scenario 2: I want to stop all voting fraud, even if it’s an infinitesimal chance, it’s worth it for our democracy.

I’m not sure if you know this about me, but I’m a pretty big tech geek. It’s what I get paid for, it’s how I roll, and as far as democracy goes, I’ve been pretty concerned about voting problems for a long time. Thankfully, here in Minnesota we still have paper ballots, but in other states the machines are such that there is only an electronic copy of votes — no back up, no proof that what you punched in on the screen is what got registered.

So let me ask you this first, let’s say that ID is an issue at the polls (it’s not, individual voting fraud is not, see yesterday’s post for details) — but let’s say that the lack of transparency in our election system is a big, mysterious, vague blob. Which is more troubling?

To put that in terms of my house: I have a crack in my stairway wall that drives me nuts. There’s some water damage, it looks kind of ugly, but it’s not actually causing any problems — I can just clearly see it and I don’t like it. I’ve also had the following: basement stairs that were about to give out and crumble under someone’s feet, rotten basement windows and a messed up chimney that were letting quite a bit of water in when it rained, a broken water heater, an improperly flashed porch roof, and — the bane of my existence — a tree with such powerful roots that it literally backs up sewage into our laundry tub sink exactly once every 11 months if we don’t get the roots chopped up by the sewer guy in time.

I hate those roots.

The mechanics of our voting system — literally, the structures of our voting machines — are like those tree roots. They’re not visible unless you know where to look and most people won’t notice anything’s wrong until something terrible happens. Computers are still not very understood by most people, and computer security is even less understood. It’s way easier to think about one or two bad people gaming the system, but it’s really pointless on a grand scale. Want to protect our democracy? Learn about and care about how we’re actually voting. This book is a start. I’d also recommend learning about the Electronic Frontier Foundation


Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Election Countdown: 5 Days

Tick, tick, tick. Five days until November 6 (that’s when you vote, unless you already voted, in which case — why are you reading this?) and that means this is day two of reasons you should VOTE NO on both amendments on Minnesota’s ballot. Read day one and the intro here.

Scenario 1: None of the LGBT people in my life have told me voting no is important.

Oof. It’s five days away and someone has been putting off the tough conversations. That’s okay. Maybe your niece assumes you’re voting yes and can’t be swayed and she doesn’t want to deal with the pain of actually knowing that’s what you’re doing. Maybe you have one gay colleague at work who thinks (possibly correctly) that they’d be fired if they broached the subject to colleagues.

I know it’s weird or awkward, but if you’re undecided, waffling, or know undecided people, now is the time to ask — or encourage others to ask some LGBT people — “How will this amendment affect your life? How do you feel about it?” Yeah, it’ll be awkward, but it’s just as likely that person would welcome the chance to tell you their story.

For me, I can’t describe the personal sadness I would feel knowing that my state — my people — thought so little of me that not only could they not bring themselves to reject something that made something that was illegal already extra illegal, but they wanted to change our constitution to actually promote discrimination.

For me, marriage was something I didn’t think was important until I actually met a woman who I realized would be the most amazing partner, teammate, cheerleader, and love for the rest of my life. I desperately wanted to protect her and care for her and I realized that there are definitely ways in which I can’t do that because federally and in our state, our Massachusetts marriage isn’t recognized. In some legal ways, not being able to get married makes you a permanent child — it’s your parents who will deal with your remains when you die; your parents who will be allowed in the hospital.

It’s not as dire, but what I found out after getting married was that there is something quite special about saying “I’m in it. Good or bad.” in public. There’s a reason that, at weddings, the officiant sometimes has more than just the couple say “I do.” They also ask the people in attendance — assumed to be the core communities and families of the couple — to be their support system when life gets hard and to help them stay strong as a couple. As much as I hate to admit it because of my rather strong independent streak, ritual means something. It changes how people see you, and sometimes it changes how you think about things.

Scenario 2: I keep hearing about voter fraud. It seems reasonable to try to prevent it.

Okay, first, let’s talk about what “voter fraud” means. What is the definition?

Here is the thing, it’s not a great term. Secondly, the amendment we’ve got on the ballot isn’t just about the vague notion of fraud.

This is how the amendment will be presented to you on the ballot:

Photo Identification Required for Voting.

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?”

Here is the actual wording of the amendment. There’s stuff in there about length of residence in a district, ‘mental competence,’ etc. that’s not included in what you’re voting on. That…well, that’s not good. If you’re a student, you should probably worry about that length of residence thing because you guys are always picking up and moving around.

So fine, that’s what’s on the ballot. But what’s the reason? Ah yes, the amorphous “voter fraud” thing.

The way in which the concept of voter fraud is being invoked in this kind of legislation is simple — it’s focused on individuals trying to vote in precincts they don’t live in or when they’re ineligible to vote. If that was actually a problem, that might suck a lot.

But it’s not. Go read about the Carnegie and Knight Foundations-funded report on election/voting fraud.

Here are what you need to pay attention to (from the site):

Since 2000, while fraud has occurred, the number of cases is infinitesimal.

In-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. Only 10 such cases over more than a decade were reported.

There is more fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than any other category. The analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases. (NOTE: these are still tiny, tiny numbers across the nation.)

Okay, so 10 cases of in-person voting fraud (the kind that the ID amendment would prevent) happened since 2000. During that time, 146 million Americans cast votes. That makes the incidence of voting fraud 0.00000001. If you think those odds are a problem, you should definitely play the lottery because you are sure to be a winner!

But seriously, this is a thing that hardly happens. Implementing the amendment will cost money (a lot of money) and will make it harder for people we like quite a bit (Grandma, for instance) to vote. And nuns, 23 nuns to be exact, which is double all the in-person voting fraud over 10+ years that ID would have prevented all in one state in one year!

It’s really simple. This is an amendment to address a non-existent problem. So what’s the purpose? What problem is it trying to solve? I’ll talk about that another day…


Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Election Countdown: 6 Days

Oh no, you say! Where is your election voting guide?

My dear people, do you not know what my life has been? Dissertation, dissertation, dissertation.

If you need election advice in the Twin Cities, go to this blog because it’s more or less what I would say. So there you go.

What I’m particularly concerned about in these final days leading up to the elections is that you and everyone you know vote NO (that’s a big, fat, loud NO) on both constitutional amendments on Minnesota’s ballot.

What this means is that each day for the next six days I’m going to give you one thing to tell your friends, family, dogs, cats, guys on the street, baristas, cashiers, goldfish — everyone — about each amendment.

  1. VOTING IS IMPORTANT. If you would vote no on these amendments, but are like “Meh, I was all hope and change in 2008 but then Obama wasn’t a magical pixie benevolent dictator and didn’t do everything he said he would so what’s the point?” Buck up, my cynical friend! That’s life. Life is compromise. Life is disappointment. Life is soldiering on to fight another day. The election isn’t all about Obama or any individual, it’s about everything combined.  You think you’re sick of the MN United for all Families emails now?? Just wait until we have to spend the next 15 years trying to undo the constitutional nightmare.  You’ll wish you’d just voted.
  2. VOTING NO IS IMPORTANT. That’s what I’m here for. Does it make you uncomfortable to discuss marriage with your religious parents? Do you not know or care much about Voter ID since you have a driver’s license? Now is time to have those conversations and really think about other people.  Because really, what’s harder — uncomfortable conversations or your same-sex coupled friends living in a state that says “we kind of hate you”?  (It’s the latter. Promise. Also, you think it’s hard to have one conversation? Try coming out. Welcome to a lifetime of conversations with either well-intentioned ignorance or just plain cruelty. It’s exhausting.)

Scenario 1: A person doesn’t really like the idea of same-sex marriage, but isn’t a giant anti-gay crusader or anything.

This is fine. Everyone has their process — and I’m more than happy to start with uncomfortable. I’m sure there are a lot of people like this in the state.

Remind them of a couple things: first, if they VOTE NO on the amendment, they aren’t voting to legalize same-sex marriage here. It’s already illegal. This amendment tries to make it double plus illegal and makes it hard for us to grow and change as a state.  It’s basically like “OMG Kids these days don’t mind gay people we’d better entrench anti-gay stuff in the constitution because people might make different decisions than we have!”

With that in mind, ask them if it doesn’t seem — oh, I don’t know — kind of mean to rub it in the faces of people in same-sex relationships that not only is marriage already illegal for you, we just want you to really know we’d rather you not be here in the state?  But anyway, reinforce that no one is voting for same-sex marriage, it will not be legal no matter whether the amendment wins or loses.

Scenario 2: Doesn’t everyone have ID? Why is this such a big deal?

I’ll give you some statistics later, but for now I give you this.  Do we want to make Minnesota the new California?  What do I mean?

From 1879 to the mid-nineties, California ranked first in the nation in proposed amendments (812) and second in adopted ones (485), averaging 4.29 per year (Cain, Ferejohn, Najar and Walther, 1995). (Source (PDF))

What I’m saying is that we elect representatives for a reason — to make decisions.* Don’t like their decisions? Vote in a new person. Don’t like any of them? Run for office! Legislating through ballot initiatives is a bad idea because most things that go on in government are pretty complex and a one or two sentence constitutional amendment is a pretty scary thing to vote up or down on. What does it mean? What are the implications? Really, you don’t know.

I, for one, really don’t want to vote on four constitutional amendments and revisions every year. I also don’t want anyone else in the state doing that — we simply don’t have the time to understand why it’s there, what it will mean in practice, etc.

(And, no, not everyone has an ID. We’ll get to that another time.  But they don’t.  If you have an older grandparent or great-grandparent, they probably don’t have an up-to-date, valid one.)

Stopwatch designed by Steffen Nørgaard Andersen from The Noun Project

Fair and balanced; both sides

This week was pledge drive week at Minnesota Public Radio and therefore a week in which they highlighted their coverage of “both sides” of important issues.

Please. Stop. News organizations: please stop doing this. Here is why:

  1. There are not two sides to an issue. There may be two primary talking points delivered by our two major political parties, but most issues have a multiplicity of overlapping agreements and disagreements that blur based on your underlying philosophy.
  2. “Why?” matters. Take gay marriage. Two traditionally GOP-voting blocs are divided on it: the religious right is against it, those on the economic right see the bans as bad for business. There is crossover within those groups as well – in their beliefs, in their reasoning, in what they consider of primary importance.
  3. Let’s say there are only two prevailing points of view on an issue: sometimes one side is based on fact and the other is based on marketing. Are those stances equal? Of course they’re not, but it takes less time to “report” (aka summarize press releases) on “each side” of an issue than it does to sort out the underlying nuances, facts, obfuscations, belief systems, etc. at work that drive those who hold certain viewpoints.
  4. Finally, the facts of what is actually going on often has nothing to do with the people advocating for this or that cause. If you focus on the horse race alone, no one knows what the hell is going on. This leads to the utmost of pathetic ‘reporting’ – getting it first, nevermind that this had serious consequences in the 2000 elections and made CNN and FOX news look like idiots when they misreported the results of the ACA ruling because they couldn’t be bothered to read more than a page into the ruling before rushing to the cameras.

So, please, stop talking about reporting both sides. How about just reporting? Analyzing? Describing?

That would be awesome.

Occupy Wall Street: Snark’s Role in Demeaning the 99%

In May, the New York Times reported on the challenges facing our current crop of recent college graduates. Of those under 25, and across the majors they analyzed with the data they had, the number of these individuals who were not working varied from 21.2% to 25.2%.

I’ve seen critiques of the folks occupying Wall Street right now – either that they’re privileged white kids or that they’re silly, aimless liberals – but both are in service of a right wing narrative (whether they know it or not).

It wouldn’t surprise me if you hadn’t even heard about the protest or the criticisms, because the media has expressed very little interest thus far in reporting on it, which Wonkette noted today in its article Liberal NPR Won’t Cover Wall Street Protests, So Read This Instead. In case you were interested in NPR’s response, this is it:

We asked the newsroom to explain their editorial decision. Executive editor for news Dick Meyer came back: “The recent protests on Wall Street did not involve large numbers of people, prominent people, a great disruption or an especially clear objective.”

Wonkette also reported another criticism that is often leveled at youth or even at middle or lower-middle class people who deign to protest their condition. Don’t listen to them, they own technology – if they were really poor, they wouldn’t have a laptop. This infuriates me. The most powerful tools that we have right now are those that facilitate the mass distribution of content. That means video cameras, that means iPhones, that means laptops. Twitter and YouTube are powerful tools for organizing when the media ignore you, and it’s sure as hell hard to type on location without a portable computer. When people critique those so-called luxuries, what they are advocating for is silence.

An article that is a “must-read” on the occupation was an essay titled The Revolution Begins at Home, by Arun Gupta that was reposted today by Naomi Klein. A few highlights:

They have created a unique opportunity to shift the tides of history in the tradition of other great peaceful occupations from the sit-down strikes of the 1930s to the lunch-counter sit-ins of the 1960s to the democratic uprisings across the Arab world and Europe today.

Our system is broken at every level. More than 25 million Americans are unemployed. More than 50 million live without health insurance. And perhaps 100 million Americans are mired in poverty, using realistic measures. Yet the fat cats continue to get tax breaks and reap billions while politicians compete to turn the austerity screws on all of us.

Yet against every description of a generation derided as narcissistic, apathetic and hopeless they are staking a claim to a better future for all of us.

To be fair, the scene in Liberty Plaza seems messy and chaotic. But it’s also a laboratory of possibility, and that’s the beauty of democracy. As opposed to our monoculture world, where political life is flipping a lever every four years, social life is being a consumer and economic life is being a timid cog, the Wall Street occupation is creating a polyculture of ideas, expression and art.

Yet while many people support the occupation, they hesitate to fully join in and are quick to offer criticism. It’s clear that the biggest obstacles to building a powerful movement are not the police or capital – it’s our own cynicism and despair.

Get size and scope (plus a bunch of rich folks looking down on them while drinking champagne…you can’t make this stuff up).

So here is the thing: these folks weren’t rallied and organized by FOX. They haven’t been fed talking points to regurgitate. They are actually in the midst of identifying and creating their actual agenda – all while maintaining presence on the more global agenda – that our country’s current interpretation of what capitalism should look like is destroying our country and their futures.

Those of us who have careers – who are lucky enough to still be on a track – might glom on to the idea that these are spoiled kids, but that’s not a valid narrative (and not only because it’s not just young people). We would be attracted to that narrative because it would make us feel better about our relative positions or provide an outlet (however inappropriate) for the exhaustion and stress of paying off debts for our own educations and houses. It’s why the NY Times so easily prints those criticisms or why NPR until recently (I think today) chose to not bother with it.

The truth is that those of us who cling to our middle class lives are clinging to a myth. Nothing guarantees that your luck won’t turn, that you won’t wind up one of those human interest stories about the successful person who lost it all. Very few of us are going to give up what we have without kicking and screaming, however, which is why the people taking up camp on Wall Street are so important. They have the time, wealth, privilege, poverty, powerlessness, or just plain guts to do what I’m not and what you’re probably not.

They’re holding the people responsible for the economic condition we’re in to account – the people who have made wealth beyond your wildest imagination at your expense. And that is why both narratives we’re presented with – the spoiled rich kids and the silly liberals – are in the service of the right wing: they both encourage you to do nothing, and nothing is getting a few people very, very rich.

Sadly, it’s sure not helping you.

It’s Pride. Would you…?

It’s Pride weekend in most of the major metro areas in the country and I wanted to bring you a little happiness and a word of caution.

I am thrilled that New York’s legislators decided to vote yes on gay marriage. I sincerely hope we overcome the cruelty our own legislature is trying to inflict on the MN LGBT community and that we can get back on track to getting gay marriage here. It would be nice to be legally recognized in more than six states.

But that’s not exactly why I’m posting.

In our desire for equality – something valid and good and worthwhile – it’s important to remember, and to celebrate, the people who sparked a movement of pride and the call to come out, without whom many of the people in our community who are out now in 2011 would not otherwise be.

Always remember – it wasn’t the rich, the “straight-acting,” the “normative” folks who acted at Stonewall

The only photograph taken during the first night of the riots shows the homeless youth that slept in nearby Christopher Park, scuffling with police. The Mattachine Society newsletter a month later offered its explanation of why the riots occurred: “It catered largely to a group of people who are not welcome in, or cannot afford, other places of homosexual social gathering…. The Stonewall became home to these kids. When it was raided, they fought for it. That, and the fact that they had nothing to lose other than the most tolerant and broadminded gay place in town, explains why.”

So the questions I want all of us to keep in our heads are these:

If not for the actions of the queens, the street kids, the prostitutes, the gender non-conformists, and all of those folks that some people in and out of the community say are inhibiting acceptance…

Would you be out?

Really, what would you risk for the kind of life you have now?

Older posts

© 2019 Syndicate and Hague

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑