Lous de Bernieres once said, and I am paraphrasing here because I am too lazy to grab my copy of The War of Don Emmanuel’s Nether Parts and look it up, that a true patriot loves his country, but recognizes its flaws and labors to fix them. It being the Fourth of July, and all, official holiday of Americanism, apple pie, and blowing things up, I think it’s a good time to reflect on patriotism, and the state of affairs in this country.

Basically, I think most of us would agree that this country is facing some very serious problems, and that many people seem to be wilfully determined to ignore said problems. Our government, as Gray Anderson says in Jericho, “is in dire need of replacement,” but so is our entire way of life.

In 1776, a few brave people decided that they weren’t satisfied with the government they had, so they overthrew it, and set up a new one. And one of the things they did when establishing a new government was write in the possibility of overthrowing that government, too. Indeed, it was suggested as an almost patriotic duty; that if tyrants once again gained control of America, the citizens were obliged to rise up and do something about it.

Last week, the Supreme Court reached a verdict which many people say defended the second amendment as written by the founders of this country. Discussing this issue with my father recently, I pointed out that I didn’t think individual citizens needed to have military grade weapons, although some weapons like rifles for self-defense and hunting were not unreasonable.

“But what,” my father said, “what happens when you need to defend yourself from the military?” My father is by no means a rabid gun rights activist, he was just arguing a point, but it was a good point, and it reminded me of how complacent and abstracted from reality we have become, as citizens. What if we do need to defend ourselves from the military? What if we collectively realize that we have a moral obligation to wipe the slate clean, and start all over again?

America is broken, but I’m starting to think we aren’t capable of fixing it. Imagine, for a moment, seriously imagine what would happen if people tried to foment violent rebellion against the tyrants of nepotism, octopus-like corporations, and corruption. Hello, extraordinary rendition, that’s what would happen. Unless Americans took a collective stand, agreed to stick together to defend the values that are important to them. Last time I checked, those values were “liberty and justice for all.”

And I happen to be a big fan of those values.

One of the more interesting bits of political news this weekend is that Obama supporters, especially young Obama supporters, have adopted his middle name as their own. Not formally, of course, but people are changing their names on social networking sites, email services, and so forth. I happen to think it’s a rather interesting act of protest and consciousness-raising. I’m not quite sure what it will accomplish, but it’s pretty neat.

The Times article I linked to above references 1960’s Spartacus, a movie loosely based on the life (and rebellion) of a slave of the same name. I think even people who haven’t seen the film are familiar with the scene where authorities are trying to out Spartacus, and when he prepares to give himself up, shouting “I am Spartacus,” others in the crowd chime in “no, I am Spartacus,” so that it is impossible to identify the real Spartacus. It’s a theme which has been used in other movies; the idea of using the collective to render an idea or an identity less scary, and less persecutable.

And I can think of a few times when the technique has been used in real life, as re: certain adventures I won’t discuss because the statue of limitations isn’t up yet. But let’s just say that it’s harder to arrest 200 people for something than it is to arrest one person.

After all, if everyone had the middle name “Hussein,” it couldn’t really be used as an effective bludgeon, and I think it’s pretty excellent to see so many people taking it on, because they care so passionately about their candidate. I am, as admitted elsewhere, not a huge Obama fan, although I stand behind him as the best choice in a sea of not so great choices, but it’s rather inspiring to see that other people really are into him, so into him that they will embark on zany protest schemes.

The Times suggests that the Obama campaign must be less than thrilled with this protest campaign, because they don’t want to draw attention to the Hussein in the room. But I think that’s the wrong attitude to take. I think they should be open about it, frank and up front, because by putting it out there in the open, in a way they expose it to less criticism and ridicule.

Frankly, the whole idea that people are using Mr. Obama’s middle name against him is ludicrous to begin with, so why not highlight the craziness with a mass-name changing campaign? Sometimes, when a situation is blown out of proportion, people start to realize just how silly is really is.

So, for a little while, at least, I’ll be s.h. smith.

When I write a politician, I don’t usually respect a response, because I understand that politicians are busy.

When I get a form letter, probably generated by an autoresponder which searches for key terms like “health care,” it’s just offensive. Dude, if you’re not going to read your correspondence, that’s totally cool, but don’t send out form letters which obviously demonstrate that the correspondence wasn’t read. I sent a thoughtful, well-constructed criticism of the healthcare plan, and got a form letter.

I. Am. Not. Pleased. I would rather get nothing at all than some rote letter telling me to donate to your campaign. Voice for change my ass. When I was a political intern, I actually took the time to READ every single piece of correspondence which entered the office, and I responded to each one. Sometimes, the response was simply “we are inundated with mail, but we did read your letter, and your concerns will be relayed to [politician I worked for]. Thank you for taking the time to contact us.”

Form letter parroting your campaign rhetoric? Not impressive. Boo, Mr. Obama.

One of the first things that people started wailing about when it became clear that Obama would get the nomination was his health plan. “It’s no good,” people said. “People will be left without insurance.” “It doesn’t go far enough.” So, I decided to read said health plan to get an idea of what was actually going on, so that I could comment on it. You can read it too, if you want, it’s hosted on his website and it is pretty short.

After reading the health plan, I was forced to both agree and disagree with people who criticized it. I’ll start with the disagreeing, because I can get that over with very quickly:

The fact that any sort of health plan is being proposed for Americans is a good thing, because it shows that politicians are responding to growing upset among Americans about the state of their healthcare. However, and here comes the agreement part, Obama’s plan is going to fail, and that sucks both for Americans now, and for Americans in the future, because it means that the next time a health care plan is proposed, people are going to point to the failure of Obama’s plan as a reason to not enact it.

Why is it going to fail? Because it’s not universal. The only way to make a national health plan functional is to make it universal and mandatory. I have really been torn on the issue of mandates, but I was recently converted. Simply put, it’s better for us to have one central insurance provider (such as the plan available to federal employees) and for every single American to be covered. Because people who are uninsured cost all of us money, and the system will be cheaper and better if everyone’s on board.

That said, I still strongly feel that health care should be free. Not just to the poor, but to everyone. People like me would really suffer under health care mandates, because I can’t afford insurance, but I’m not poor enough to qualify for help from the state. On paper, my income is quite reasonable, and I should certainly be able to afford insurance, but unless it was offered at a drastically reduced rate, I couldn’t. Because the cost of living here is too high, and because I am in debt. And a lot of Americans are in the exact same position; on paper, we look like we’re in clover, but the reality is a little different. The poverty line is one very useful marker for determining eligibility for free/discounted services (and if you live below the poverty line, everything should be free), but it can’t be the only yardstick; we need to accept that America is an expensive place to live in, especially for college graduates struggling with debt.

Mr. Obama’s proposal doesn’t mention anything about how much the premiums would be, which is a pretty crucial piece of missing information. Perhaps the proposed premiums would actually be quite reasonable, and totally attainable for people like me. And maybe not. Either way, I can’t get behind the plan, because it’s not mandatory.

So I wrote Mr. Obama a letter, explaining my trepidations about his plan. Obviously he won’t be reading it personally, but I hope that more letters like mine trickle into his offices; enough so that his aides sit down with him to have a serious talk about reforming his plan, because I think that he genuinely does want to set up a plan which will work, and I would like to see him succeed at that.

Incidentally, here is a very short, clear, neat little video on what single-payer is, and why it’s a darn good idea.

Today, I received a letter from the IRS in an envelope which deceptively said “stimulus check” in big red letters, so I got all excited. As I turned out, it was, in fact, a letter about my stimulus check, which, for those keeping score, is the second piece of correspondence I have received about the check without actually receiving the check itself. Which leads me to deeply question the efficiency of the IRS; sending out all these letters can’t be cheap.

The letter tells me that I should get my check by the 13th, but that if I don’t receive it “within six weeks,” then I might want to, you know, call and talk to someone about it. I think my favourite part of the message was the delightfully postmodern second paragraph, titled “What You Need To Do,” which starts with the line “You do not need to do anything.” I am tempted to take this message from the IRS To heart, applying it to all regions of my life.

This tidal wave of “stimulus check” related correspondence has led me to conclude that I will be filing my taxes somewhat differently next year. First, I’m going to send them a letter in January which states that I intend to file my taxes, and briefly explaining the tax filing process. Then, on 10 April, I will send them a letter which says that I intend to file my taxes by 4/15/09, and if they “do not receive it within six weeks of this notice, please contact [me] at the number shown above.”

Above all, I will be sure to let them know that they do not need to do anything.

“FEMINIST HOPES DASHED,” the headline on the newspaper sprawled out across the table in the Coffeehouse screamed. I had stopped in, as I do now and then, and spotted some old friends sitting in the back, reading the paper. I sat with them for awhile, talking about this and that, and somehow the discussion came around to politics, as it so often does, and we expressed dismay over the headline.

If there’s one thing about this election that’s pissed me off, it’s the characterization of feminists and feminism which has sprawled throughout the media, giving all of us a bad name. A very small and vocal minority has created an ideal topic for articles by being completely insane, allowing the media to generalize, creating the idea that all feminists are crazy.

“For years,” I was explaining to my friends, “I was reluctant to call myself a feminist because of the crazed antics of some radical feminists. And then, I realized that it’s really important to identify as a feminist, to show that there is a broad cross-section of ideas and ways of thinking in the feminist movement.”

It causes me to foam at the mouth when I read headlines like the one above, suggesting that because a crappy female candidate failed to hoodwink the country into voting for her, feminists nation-wide are crushed. There’s no hope for women in politics. Feminism is dead.

Now, for sure, there are some feminists who are very bummed out right now, and there are also some things about this election that bummed me out, as a feminist. There was a whole lot of sexism going on, and it was not only broadly accepted, but even a topic of joking and funtime. People showed up at Clinton rallies with shirts that said “make me a sandwich,” and I assure you that if someone had showed up at an Obama speech with a shirt that said “go pick my cotton,” there would have been widespread outrage. I’m not sad because Clinton lost, but I am sad that so much blatant sexism was allowed to pass without comment or discussion.

This election definitely illustrated, for me, the vast work which still lies ahead for the feminist movement. The fact that Clinton’s gender was used against her was awful, and despicable, and it makes me extremely angry to see how many people just totally missed this, or ignored it as not important. It is important that a major female contender for the Presidential nomination was treated as a laughingstock, and that is an issue which should be addressed. It is important that outspoken female supporters for Clinton got called “stupid cunts,” and got messages on their YouTube videos talking about how much the commenters wanted to rape them. This, my homechickens, is not ok.

But, ultimately, she lost the election not because she is a woman, but because she is a Clinton, and this needs to be accepted. There was nastiness which also needs to be addressed, to be certain, but people who are deluded into thinking that the election was solely about gender need to rethink their positions.

And, let me tell you, nothing infuriates me more than the lunatic fringe of women who claim that they will vote for McCain over Obama. This isn’t just a profound insult; it’s a smear on the face of the feminist movement, and ultimately, it’s self-harming. I don’t care how bitter you are, as a woman, a vote for McCain is a vote to go back to the kitchen and cook some pies until you get pregnant. It’s a vote against the huge gains for women’s rights which have been made in the last century. It’s a vote which says that women should not have control of their own bodies and destinies. And it’s a vote which tells people that feminists are so crazy that they would rather shoot themselves in the vagina (or wherever) than vote for Obama, and that’s just bad public relations.

For the love of Pete, women, don’t vote for McCain. Not just because it would be a bad choice for you personally, and it would, and because it would be a horrible choice for America, but because if McCain wins, the disaffected feminist bloc is going to be blamed for it, and that really will dash the hopes of feminists, by setting the feminist movement back 40 years, to the era when feminists were all viewed as deluded bra-less idiots. And even if you don’t care about being viewed as a lunatic fringe, how about respecting the work of thousands of women who are trying to legitimize feminism, who are trying to actively fight for women’s rights, who are trying to make a concrete, actual difference in the world?

So, apparently, there’s an organization in the United States called the National Abstinence Education Association, and they’re so riled up about sex ed in schools that they’re starting a nation-wide campaign to try and enlist parents in their goal of converting American sex education to an abstinence-only approach. Now, I thought this was pretty ludicrous, until I learned that a similar campaign in Georgia in the early 1990s actually worked, so the organization isn’t just going out on a wild hare here, they actually believe that their little scheme will be effective.

I think that the constant battles over issues of sexuality and gender in this country really illustrate a fundamental, gaping divide, and it’s a pity, because in this case, it’s kids who are going to suffer. I’m a pretty big advocate of giving children the information they need to make their own decisions, and it makes me hopping mad to hear of a national campaign which is basically designed to keep America’s youth in a state of ignorance.

This coming from the same people who will refuse to deal with the inevitable consequences of unprotected teen sex: unwanted children, for example, and rising STD rates. It’s not just AIDS that’s experiencing a resurgence in this country, it’s gonorrhea, syphilis, and everything else, and a lot of these diseases are fully preventable with the use of adequate barrier methods. And teens in particular among the fastest growing group of those infected with STDs. I suspect that this is in no small part due to crappy sex ed programs, where instructors are crippled by ridiculous moral stipulations. It boggles my mind that people who claim to profess “Christian values” would condemn people to a state of ignorance which could potentially put them at serious risk, all for the sake of promoting their own moral stance on sexuality.

I’ve always subscribed to the harm reduction approach to public health, which involves an acceptance of the fact that people are dumb, and that people are also going to make choices which are different from my own, but I might as well help make those choices less dangerous. Not just for the benefit of the people making those choices, but for myself; rising rates of STDs doesn’t benefit anybody, and I’m not a big fan of paying for unwanted brats with my tax dollars, either. It is to the advantage of all of us to accept that people are very diverse and stubborn creatures, and rather than trying to pretend these things don’t happen, or trying to ban them, we should be offering people a chance to  make safer choices.

To say that we should only offer abstinence-only education is to say that we should disenfranchise our children. I understand that some parents are extremely, deeply opposed to sex education, and perhaps they should be given the ability to opt-out, but why penalize everyone? In my hazy memories of sex ed, our teachers weren’t saying “hey kids, go out and have yourselves some SEX!” They were simply providing us with information we could use, including information about the consequences of sexual activity. I think that people would be hard-pressed to find a sex education program which is actually advocating sexual activity for children and teens, so it’s ludicrous to say that sex ed offers “explicit how-to information that gives teens a green light for activities that put them at risk.”

I can only hope that this plan fails, but I fear that, given the polarized state of this country, it might actually end up being successful, creating yet another thing for Europeans to mock us for. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if political organizations in the United States are being secretly paid by European comedians to generate new material for them to lampoon.

“This body of 30 individuals has decided that they’re going to substitute their judgment for 600,00 voters,” Mr. Ickes said. “Now that’s what I call democracy,” he added sarcastically. (source)

How right you are, Mr. Ickes. It is indeed horrifying that 30 individuals get to have a major influence on the outcome of the primary race, thus reminding voters that they have no real say in the democratic process, except when it suits the party elite to give us the illusion of making some sort of difference. Of course, you were petulantly referring to the outcome of the vote in Michigan, not this entirely messed up electoral system in general, but still.

I am, as you might have gathered, infuriated by the decision of the rules committee which was made yesterday. Now, I’m not a Democrat, so maybe my views don’t count, but I don’t think I’m the only one here who is irritated, and fortunately some of the people who are irritated are registered Democrats, so maybe we’ll be seeing some backlash of some form or another. From the sound of things, the backlash is already starting: some people are pissed that delegates were seated, some people are pissed that the delegates were seated but they only get a half vote, others are pissed that Mrs. Clinton was stripped of four delegates, and so forth. It’s a decision I don’t think anyone is happy with, honestly.

It’s a meeting that should never have been held. Florida and Michigan violated the rules of the party, their delegates should not have been seated. Period. The fact that there was even a meeting to discuss this infuriates me. The fact that the outcome of that meeting was a decision to seat the delegates is outrageous.

By agreeing to seat the delegates (even with half a vote each), the DNC sent a clear message. And that message is that if you whine enough, and get your husband to whine enough, you can get what you want. And, apparently, when you get what you want, you’re going to whine some more. The DNC should have held their ground and toed the line, because they set a dangerous precedent yesterday. And it’s a precedent that I think hurts women in politics, because now people are going to say “Man, remember back in ‘08 when Clinton didn’t get what she wanted, and she lost the nomination anyway? That was a bitch, wasn’t it?”

This is what rules are for, kids, and sometimes rules suck, but then again, you can’t always get what you want. Those states knew the consequences of moving their primaries up, they chose to do so anyway, and they should have  been penalized. Just like you get a ticket when you drive too fast.

As for what’s going on with Michigan, it’s ludicrous for the Clinton campaign to be talking about “the voice of the people” in a state where Mr. Obama took his name off the ballot and refused to campaign, out of respect for the DNC. To claim that you “won” the vote in a state where you were one of the only names on the ballot is just offensive. Kucinich and Gravel may have stayed on the Michigan ballot, but since Obama wasn’t represented, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the people got a voice. Maybe that 55% who voted for Clinton would have voted differently if Mr. Obama had been on the ballot, and that’s something the Clinton campaign seems to be reluctant to even consider.

And boo to the Clinton campaign for encouraging protestors while the Obama campaign politely requested that people not protest the meeting, as it would be unproductive. Boo to the Clinton campaign for trying to muscle the DNC into doing its bidding, and for trying to manipulate voters and superdelegates into taking positions based on fear, rather than values.

Today, I’m glad I can say I’m not a Democrat. I come from a long lineage of non-partisan voters, and now I see why. Democracy is on its way to death, and the Democrats are toying with the life support machine.

Poor Hillary Clinton. Her campaign’s not even dead yet, and it’s already being autopsied in the media, with headlines like “Gender issue lives on as Clinton’s hope dims.” I don’t particularly like her, and I didn’t like her campaign at all, but I honestly feel sorry for her, both as a person and as a candidate.

Clinton has had a rough campaign. I don’t like her politics, and my lack of support for her stemmed from a general dislike to go along with her positions (and her profound lack of ethics), but she also faced a lot of misogyny. Obama, of course, has dealt with his share of racism, which also sucks, but I do think that the misogyny has been just as internalized, insidious, and widespread as the racism in this campaign. At least Obama didn’t get assaulted by the fashion police every time he appeared in public. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people did attack Clinton because she’s a woman, not because her politics suck, and that makes me really sad.

I would have liked to see a lady candidate I could really get behind and support, because, yes, I do think it would be awesome to have a woman as President, just I think it would be marvelous to have anyone who isn’t a white, middle-aged Christian male as President, for the sake of variety. And this campaign has really made me feel torn, as someone with lady bits, because I feel like I’m condemned for not supporting her because I’m betraying the sisterhood, while women who do support her are being condemned for blindly following the sisterhood instead of thinking for themselves, when in fact pro and con Clinton camps have very good, well thought-out reasons for their opinions.

I hate, hate, hate that the media is acting like Clinton’s defeat spells the end of women in politics, because it doesn’t. Clinton was a poor candidate, and that’s why she’s getting hammered right now; not because she’s a woman, but because she’s a Clinton. Because she played dirty, because her politics were divisive, and because she just wasn’t (in my opinion) right for America. There are lots of powerful, smart, awesome ladies in politics right now, and their numbers are likely to grow in the coming years, with or without Clinton.

Most of my friends, for some reason or another, all have little boys instead of little girls, but if they did have little girls, I have every confidence that those girls could grow up to be President, if that’s what they wanted to be. It’s sad that this campaign has involved a lot of poisonous sexism and racism, because I imagine that’s pretty hard for younger minds to deal with: I can look at a Clinton rally and see someone wearing a stupid “do my laundry shirt” and just be amused and sad, whereas a young girl might have a tougher time dealing with that image.

It makes me angry that Clinton has tried to make herself out as a victim, crying “misogyny” instead of simply admitting that she is a poor candidate in a lot of ways, but, at the same time, to act like her gender isn’t an issue is just plain stupid. Obviously it’s an issue, obviously there are people who didn’t vote for her solely because she’s a woman (just as people didn’t vote for Obama because he’s black), and that really, really sucks. It sucks that a successful female politician is, by nature, going to have to be twice as awesome as her male counterparts to buck misogynistic stereotypes, and it sucks that people think it’s ok to assault Clinton on the basis of how she looks and dresses.

Because, in the end, this distracts from the fundamental issue, which is that people had some very good, strong reasons for not wanting to support Clinton, and those reasons had nothing to do with what’s between her legs and what she wears to debates. Gender and racism have become huge issues in this election, and not in a positive getting-society-to-think kind of way, but in a negative, distracting kind of way.

That, in my humble opinion, is a travesty.