Admittedly the choice between corrupt democrats and corrupt republicans isn't the political choice I want. I'd rather vote my way towards fairness, elimination of poverty, anti-trust laws that fight the consolidation of corporations (you read about grocery stores lately?), education, infrastructure.
What you do get is a vote for democrats that vote to end rail strikes (source) because they can't carve out of the profits a sick leave, versus reality denying, Russian bought, obstructionists who might lower taxes, and want smaller government. The Ron Swanson's of the world who hate government and work in government.
I've been running into people who believe the corrupt choices aren't worth even making. Reasons not to pay attention.I've thought that a few times in my life, but I don't think that now.
There are real choices about health care for women, and even just an attitude towards democracy. It's hard to fight past the rhetoric, and understand even what is being voted for and against. Even if it's the choices in the Supreme court.
In a way it feels like the choice between fantasized choices, and rejecting that the world isn't really the way you'd like it to be. And sifting through the rhetoric to what people really do, and accepting that most politicians are bought and sold.
When things aren't clear, you still ask the questions. What are the real political choices? Which side is less likely to promote reform in negative ways? It's a confusing cloud of possibility.
There was a murder down the block and politicians and officials got together to have a discussion about what it means and what is to be done. Getting together to talk about it seems like weak tea. It's a school for troubled kids in a nice enough neighborhood. What are they going to do? If someone gang leader puts a hit on someone, it could happen wherever the school is. Do you take the school away? No.
The same fight for society is the same fight for society. We plug education, jobs, the most fair police and justice system possible that makes both progressives and conservatives unhappy. So they got together and talked and won't do anything, but sometimes there's nothing obvious to do. Each person in the room would have been trying to move the compromises in some kind of direction a smidge.
For me tighter gun control laws would be important. The tight gun laws in New York City don't mean as much when people can drive a couple hours, to somewhere where the laws aren't tight. The guy who shot up Walmart because people made fun of him, bought the gun that day. People are still upset, he could go into the break room with a knife or some other weapon and hurt people. The aggressive instincts of males isn't going away with tighter gun laws. Just taking away automatic guns will cut down on their ability to maximize harm.
On the one hand impatience is good, the desire to throw it all out and reform is good. I'm hoping we throw out the billionaires, reform the courts, set up a good rail system. The other side might fantasize about getting rid of rules that hinder billionaires. It's fundamentally different vision of what is hampering us. I still don't think one side always winning would be the best thing, so I'm going to keep paying attention.
What is my estranged conservative friend concerned about? Government assisted suicide in Canada. That is proof that the compromises of democrats and conservatives isn't working.
Then I read that Tofu won't save the world. "Planning the Christmas lunch yet? If you are vegan you’ve doubtless got tofu in there somewhere, perhaps served up with a sauce made piquant with a tablespoon of smugness. After all, going “plant-based” will save the planet from climate change, whereas we meat-eating ignorati are murdering you, and nature, and the air we breathe."
Lots of great name calling. He quotes Suella Braverman, "Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati" (Guardian). I do love the Guardian. Closing my eyes isn't a way forward for me. It's harder to point to a good conservative newspaper, but there are many. My cousin says the New York Post is pretty good and respected, but I really hate it's political slant. That doesn't mean I always censor myself when tempted to click on an article.
It's an interesting article, language wise. The comments section is a bunch of back slapping. Articulate people are good, even if what they fight for feels wrong headed. I enjoy the debate of ideas. The current crop of American republicans (the author lives in England) doesn't want to really debate in the arena of ideas. They feel too wounded.
If it turns out tofu is less good for the environment than meat, that would be interesting. I don't think he decisively proves it, he just raises the question. I eat tofu probably once a week, so if I had to cut it out to save the planet, I could do that easily. He may have the point that it's not as clean as you'd think it is. But it's back to my same point. Casting aspersions on choices doesn't mean you actually win the argument, or that you shouldn't pay attention. He's certainly paying attention.
Underneath the culture wars is a psychological battle that no side will ever win. There's more than one way of being. Democracy is the best way to sort through these conflicting interests. One man, and it would be a man, as a dictator imprinting his vision is no way. How do you resolve the competing interests in a society? One guy gets his way? That's your solution?
In Peru they arrested the president who tried for a coup. I have a friend at the park who says America will never arrest a former president because if they applied the same criteria as the Nuremberg trials, all presidents would be arrested after they left office. They will never arrest Trump.
He broke so many norms, why not break this norm.
As Russia puts the ultimate spike into sending Brittney Griner home for the Merchant of Death. Can America survive so many nasty spiked deals meant to unravel the open society?
The lurid attention getters say outrageous things that excite the right’s base like a dog whistle. Maggie three names and Musk have to know they’re shit stirrers. The best thing is not to be stressed by them. This is why there is a bubble in a positive sense.
Study say antisocial tendencies is more indicative of believing Q-anon. Why conservatives were complicit with this—they’re law and order stance isn’t sincere.
Fuckery continues: They should be kicked out.
Keri Lake with election fuckery that Trump made popular.
Comments
Post a Comment