dichroic: (oar asterisk)

I have a question. Is there *any* accurate (non-alt-right) evidence that the “antifa” engaged in unprovoked violence in Charlottesville? I am seeing a few well-intentioned people saying that they deplore racism yada yada but that they deprecate violence on *both* sides.

I went combing through the news and the only evidence I could find of violence from people on the left was that the protests and counterprotests devolved into ‘taunting, shoving, and brawling’. Of course I’d like to believe that the Nazis started it, and others were only defending themselves – but either way, in my opinion, brawling with people who are brawling with you is waaaay different than

1) Arranging a riot and showing up armed and ready to fight
2) Trapping activists inside a church where they’re holding a prayer vigil
3) Surrounding and roughing up a small group of UVA students trying to defend their campus from interlopers
4) running your car into counterprotestors and then reportedly backing up over them to cause maximum damage

So, OK, I’m against initiating violence, but even violence has degrees – and defending yourself and others is not only OK but required. It’s not a binary “did it happen or didn’t it” thing, and while I’m perfectly prepared to call out my own fellow travelers for conduct unbecoming when required, I don’t think there was any here that needs to be called out.

While I’m at it, another quick question: I first saw that term “antifa” or “anti fa” used by the alt-right. Now I’m seeing it everywhere. Are we reclaiming it? Is “anti fa”, with the space, meant to mean “anti fascist”?

I just heard a fascinating and somewhat depressing discussion on Federal prosecution of the man who killed Heather Heyer. Apparently this may be tricky for them (this applies only to the Federal case; VA laws may differ).

  • They may not be able to make a hate crime charge stick because, no matter who he was aiming at, the victim in this case was white. (Maybe they can still get that to stick because others were injured? I don’t know.)
  • The Federal KKK law will only apply if he turns to to have been conspiring with others, not if it was a lone-wolf attack
  • If they call it terrorism, that gives the investigation more power but they can’t prosecute it as terrorism because the Federal law only covers the international variety, not domestic terrorism.

Sounds like we need to rethink some laws. At least murder is still illegal.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

For the past year, on places like Facebook or Ravelry, I’ve been using an icon with a quote from Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Tony Award sonnet – the words “love is love is love is love is love” on a rainbow background.

In the years I’ve been on social media, whether LJ or FB or Ravelry, I’ve generally preferred to use icons that are photos or drawings of myself or personal symbols (like my oars-on-propeller asterisk – to underscore that I am the one speaking here.

I heard this morning that today is the one-year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub bombing. That means that sometime this week, it’s been one year since I started using this “love is love is love is love” icon. In that year, the state of the world has been such that there has not been one day that I could bear to put anything else in its place – that I felt I could stop chanting this message and go back to an innocuous photo of myself, or a silly picture or some other quote.

Not one fucking day.

Not that I think my icon makes any real difference, just that it’s been a year of constant vigilance, with no channel of resistance against the Dementors allowed to be safely ignored. I hope some day the world will at least slow down its descent into hell to the point that I can just be plain or silly or ironic again.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

President Trump said something very silly about Andrew Jackson. This is no surprise, because I don’t expect him to have any knowledge of history (or morals, which are reqruird to realize that maybe the guy who kicked native Americans off their land or kept slaces didn’t have such a “big heart”). What’s a bit annoying are all the comments along the lines of, “Ha, ha, how can he be so stupid? Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War!”, as if the war’s roots weren’t in place unil just before the shooting started. There was always going to be conflict between the states on the slave issue; it was revealed in the argument on the wording of the Declaration of Independence (1776), codified in the Constitution (1789), and cemented into place with the invention of the cotton gin (1793). Slavery died a comparatively easy death in places like England or New York, that weren’t suited to growing cotton, but the cotton gin made large-scale cotton agriculture profitable, and it required a large low-salaried workforce.

By the time of Jackson, who was in office 1829-1837, it didn’t take a crystal ball to see the conflict coming, only to tell whether it would end up in a shooting war or if there could be a less violent solution. I’m certain Jackson would indeed have preferred the latter – as long as that solution allowed him and other slaveholders to retain their human “property”. Jackson was known as a populist, but only certain voices mattered in that particular vox populi – white ones, to be specific.

One thing that scares me at present is whether Trump will be impeached. I can see one scenario where the Republicans in Congress turn on him, declare his incompetence to serve, present themselves as the champions of the American people, ride a tidal wave into office in 2018 …. and work closely with President Pence (shudder) to kill national health insurance, restrict women’s and LGBTQ civil rights, and set up an oligarchy that only has a somewhat larger group in power than Trump intended. I don’t really want to see Tump impeached unless Pence goes with him and Ryan is either kicked out, running scared, or overpowered by a strong Democratice / Independent majority.

A more hopeful view is that the just-voted budget is a sign of a new maturity and bipartisan mood in Congress, leading to cooperation and good-faith negotiation on what’s best for the United States. Not sure that’s really the way to bet, but it could happen.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

When I was a small child, back in the days when hippies roamed the earth, there was a poster above my bed with the words:

is not
for children
and other
living things

Apparently I internalized that message, because my immediate gut response to Trump launching “the mother of all bombs” into Syria was along the lines of “Oh, crap. I don’t want to die.” I do not want to die in WWIII, and I especially don’t want it to happen soon. I do not appreciate that blowhard who wormed his way into the White House trying to prove his manhood by playing chicken with Syria and its Russian supporters, or conversely with North Korea and its China supporters. People get hurt playing chicken (just ask my spouse, who spent half of his fourth grade year in a full-leg cast). The bigger the scale you’re playing on, the more people who are likely to get hurt.

(Yes, we just had a visit from my whole family; it was very nice and I need to write about that, but I had to get this off my fingertips first.)

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

The White House’s web page had now posted descriptions of each item of the Bill of Rights (“summaries” about as long as their originals) in which they consistently replace “the people” with “citizens”.
Whitehouse.gov page
Original Bill of Rights

But I’ve just had the most graphic proof that political delusions and ridiculous euphemisms are no new thing.

WTF, Louisa May Alcott? In the second edition of Aunt Jo’s Scrapbag, she’s in the French city of Dinan, where she’s discussing how the local women seem to do the hard work of the town, and how strong and capable they are while never complaining:

The washerwomen were among the happiest of these happy souls, and nowhere were seen prettier pictures than they made, clustered round the fountains or tanks by the way, scrubbing, slapping, singing, and gossiping, as they washed or spread their linen on the green hedges and
daisied grass in the bright spring weather. One envied the cheery faces under the queer caps, the stout arms that scrubbed all day, and were not too tired to carry home some chubby Jean or little Marie when night came; and, most of all, the contented hearts in the broad bosoms under the white kerchiefs, for no complaint did one hear from these hard-working, happy women. The same brave spirit seems to possess them now as that which carried them heroically to their fate in the Revolution, when hundreds of mothers and children were shot at Nantes and died without a murmur.

Having no idea what had happened at Nantes, I looked it up. I find it horrifically unlikely those ‘hundreds of mothers and children …died without a murmur”. Or maybe they weren’t heard because many of them drowned. But I did come up with a way to avoid argument with Trump supporters: instead of comapring him to the early days of Hitler, you just compare him to Jean-Baptiste Carrier instead. I’m certain the administration that came up with “alternative facts” would admire the elegant obfuscation of “vertical deportation” (i.e. drowning). (If you’re wondering about the shootings she mentioned vs the drownings in the Wikipedia article, LMA is just a little confused. People definitely were shot all over the Vendee region – it’s just that Nantes is specifically known for the drowning of prisoners.)

I do wonder if, maybe, the French Revolution would be a more accurate comparison for Recent Events than the Holocaust.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

I promised myself to quit engaging on FB and on political topics in general because of the high blood pressure – but maybe writing it out is better than thinking it over and letting it fester.

I’m beginning to get that feeling that supposedly elected Trump – that feeling that my kind of people are ignored by those in power, those with privilege, those with their smug ‘I got mine’ attitudes that don’t care how the rest of us might struggle. Only my kind of people aren’t Trump voters.

My kind of people, the kind I come from and a lot of those I hang out with, don’t have a lot of money. They worry a lot about how to pay for their kids’ college, but they work their ass off to do it because they want their kids to have a better life. And they tend to vote liberal, for a few reasons – none of them pertaining to being part of any ‘elite’.

One is that they’ve been through hard times. This has had two effects; it’s made them see the need for a safety net in case things really got bad, and it’s given them sympathy for those who have it even worse. They can’t vote for “I’ve got mine” if it rips the floor out from under everyone else.

Another is that they’re educated – but don’t assume that makes them ‘elite’ either. Some (OK, me) got degrees and are doing OK, but a lot of others majored in the kind of thing that may help you learn to think but doesn’t necessarily have you stashing doubloons under your mattress. Still others got to be educated on their own, by thinking and reading and listening. That’s another reason they don’t vote for Trump: because they actually listened to what he said, not just the “make America great” but all the other parts too, the parts about hurting people and the parts where he said one thing Monday and denied it Tuesday. And they looked at the historical data, and saw whose policies in the past have lifted America up and whose have let her down.

To those rural folks reputed to be feeling disenfranchised, who voted Trump for that reason: quit complaining about made-up problems. If all you’re losing is the ability to assume everyone is just like you, forget it. A lot of us have never ever had that; we’ve been standing on that shaky ground for generations, and maybe it’s done us some good. And quit making your own new problems – if you really think a rich white city boy famous for screwing people over, and who has spent way less time, effort and dollars than people with comparative riches on helping others, is the only one who cares about you, you might want to listen to those words and that data a little better. Come work with us instead on your real problems. If you’re losing your farm or can’t get decent healthcare in your community, we’ll care about you and we’ll help you (and we’re the ones likely to be raising money for you). When it comes to those real problems, my people have a lot in common with you.

And yeah, this rant was sparked by Facebook. The other day, someone told me I probably voted for Hillary just because I have decent health insurance – even though I know people who have only had any insurance since Obamacare went through. (Clarification: I think Obamacare kind of sucks, and I don’t want to give any impression that I’m defending it. I just think it’s better than nothing, since Congress blocked anything that might be better.) Just now I read two comments in a row by people who are working their asses off, having trouble making ends meet, and tired of being told they must be rich because they voted for Hillary and should just throw money at their problems.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

I’ve had so much to say since this election, but this hasn’t felt like the right place to say it, for two reasons: one is that as far as I can tell this site is mostly read by people of like mind who are already thinking the same things, and the other is that everything I need to say is being said by others, usually better.

But there are a couple of things I wanted to note down. One is that as far as I can tell, the Electoral College is a useless and antiquated system and should be abolished (not just because of this election; I’ve been complaining about them for a long time). I don’t think I need to explain how it works, but someone else-internet asked why it worked that way, and what the advantages are, and I might as well save what I wrote there (tl;dr: AFAIK, there really aren’t any).

I read Thomas Jefferson’s original reasoning – at least the reasoning he admitted to – in his own letters. Remember that news was much less of a thing then than it is now. He believed that if people elected their own government, they just wouldn’t do a good job, because they wouldn’t have enough insight into the candidates to know who would be a good President. But if they elected the best, smartest people they knew, and those people used their best judgement, we’d end up with a much better person in office. (He may have thought differently after Adams was elected, given their relationship at the time!)

Caveat the first: You will note that the current system isn’t anything like what Jefferson envisioned, since electors are no longer expected to use their judgement.
Caveat the second: I suspect Jefferson had some other motivations he didn’t discuss in those letters:
The practical one: President and VP are the only offices everyone across the country votes for, and that’s a lot of votes to count by hand. I suspect that voting for local electors made the counting much simpler.
The immoral one: how many electors a state gets depends on the size of that state – and if you remember the 3/5 Compromise, that meant that slave states had a greater effect on the election than their voting population actually warranted (hence the number of early Presidents from Virginia).

The other thing you will notice is that not one of the reasons cited above applies today. We all know a lot about the candidates by the time of the election, and electors aren’t supposed to use independent judgement anyway; we have computers to count; and all non-felon adults of sound mind can vote. So I do agree with the people calling for the dismantling of the Electoral College.

So why do some people want to keep it on the argument that it protects less-populous states? Each state has the same number of electors as it does Congresscritters (Senators plus Representatives). Therefore, no state has < 3 electors, since all states have 2 Senators, and each state has a number of Representatives proportional to its population, with a minimum of 1. Therefore, states with a very small population have a disproportionate influence on the vote. Which would make sense if you were Thomas Jefferson and thought that farmers were inherently more righteous than businesspeople (well, businessmen, if you were Jefferson). Some problems with this: The District of Columbia ALSO has three electors, and thus the same disproportionate influence as those hardy sons of of the soil. And who thinks giving the most political city in the US some extra clout is a good idea? If you are in sitting at a bar somewhere in France or Japan or Ethiopia, and you ask someone from Missoula or Grants Pass or Tulsa where they're from, they're almost certain to say "America", or "the US" if they want to be precise. (One exception: Texans tend to start with "Texas" and only admit to being part of the US after that.) Only when you get talking in more detail do they identify which state they're from. We started out as a union more like the EU, and there's no doubt that we still have some strong regional identities, but while, say, Arkansas might not want to be overruled by New England, I don't think they care much if they have more or less votes than Tennessee or Vermont by Massachusetts. I think we've gone beyond the need to filter national elections through the states - that's what Congress is there for, to protect local interests. Also, logically, the disproportionate power of rural voters is offset by the winner-take-all system, in which all electors for a state go to whoever got the most votes. This means, for example, that a state like Oregon, which has 4 million people with over half of those in metro Portland and another big chunk in Eugene, still votes blue despite most of the state (by land area rather than population) being red (check out the map on this page).

So basically as far as I can see, the only possible advantage to anyone at all in the Electoral College system, is that it gives the people who like to shout about states’ rights something to shout about.

(I didn’t really answer the question as to what the real advantage of the system is. As far as I can see, there isn’t one.)

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)


(Election nerves.)

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.


Nov. 8th, 2016 04:27 pm
dichroic: (oar asterisk)

I’ve been following Pantsuit Nation today on Facebook. I only heard of it yesterday, apparently it was only founded a couple of weeks ago, and now it feels like all my female friends are in there.

If anyone remembers Horton Hears a Who, it sort of feels like we’ve been shouting “We are here, we are here, we are here, we are here!” and today on Facebook, on Pantsuit Nation and elsewhere on my feed, has been one giant, defiant YOP!

Here’s hoping.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.

dichroic: (oar asterisk)

I have been trying hard to stay civil, throughout this whole election. It really does feel to me like this is something way out of the extraordinary and yet some knowledge of history tells me it may not be. The election of 1800 had even uglier rhetoric (even Trump hasn’t called anyone a “hideous hermaphroditic creature”) and I’m not convinced that some of our past politicians were not equally lacking in principle. Fanny Trollope, writing of America, and Anna Sewell (Black Beauty) and Emily Eden (in The semi-Attached Couple) writing of England all show elections in which the only principle was that your guy was great, the other guy was awful, and getting votes by any means was all that mattered.

Still, this is at least unlike anything I’ve seen, and I’m tired of being civil. I won’t say I’m done with it, because I think civility is a public duty, but I’m taking a short break, here in my own personal blog. Then I’ll go back to being good, at least in public.

There’s going to be frothing at the mouth here, or at least at the fingertips. I’m just venting. Read it for entertainment or click through and read something more useful. You’ve been warned.

And I just want to say, what the hell are you Trump voters thinking? Or are you thinking at all? How can you believe it’s right to make any decision in complete disregard of the facts?

Even though he doesn’t show much proof of it, Trump is a human being. Therefore, I think, he deserves a few basic courtesies: I will call him by his name, and I will judge him by his own words and actions, not by what his enemies want me to believe.

But good jumping gravy, his own words are all I need to see that the man is a walking quagmire. He denies on Tuesday what he said – in print or on recording – on Monday. He knows nothing about how government words or what the President of the US can actually do. He praises rapists and scam artists. He lets the voices of hatred and violence speak at his rallies and not only doesn’t try to silence them, he eggs them on.

There’s the guy I know from college who tells me he knows Trump is awful, but when you have rats in your house you just want them out and you don’t even care about the ratcatcher’s failings. Well, first of all, dude, you’re wrong about the rats. Sure, the US has major problems – but it’s a better place now than it was eight years ago. We have some issues we weren’t talking about then, but they’re not new, just out in the open. We still have lots of old problems too, like racism and sexism, but there’s no way any sane person can believe Trump will make those better. The one issue I can think of that’s really worse than it was any time in the last hundred years is income inequality, and Trump’s absolutely the last person to want to change that. And really, dude, you’re a Jew and a father. Do you really think they’ll come for the Muslims tomorrow and not come for you the day after? Are you going to be comfortable with a world in which your daughter is told to just leave her job if she gets harassed?

There’s the guy at work who talks a lot about his church and his religion. Dude, you’ve got daughters too, and you’ve worked hard to raise them and your son with a sense of all their possibilities – you want that shut down? You want young buys encouraged to think it’s OK to grab one of your daughters by a random body part, because she’s just there for entertainment? You’ve already got your daughters in a special group because Girl Scouts are too liberal for you; you can’t claim innocence when one of your kids’ friends commits suicide because she’s gay and she’s afraid her friends and family won’t accept her. Those aren’t Christian values, not if you interpret that phrase to mean “bearing any remote resemblance to what Jesus said and did”. And quit listening to that fringe “news”, anyway, because they’ll say anything to get you riled up. Hillary is not going to take your guns away, though she might work put in a few restrictions to make it harder for criminals to get them. You know how I know she’s not? Because, for one thing, she’s a pragmatist and knows how Americans would react, and for another she does know what the President can and cannot do.

And the rest of you: I’m not accusing you of racism, sexism and all that. Frankly I don’t give a shit what you believe or what prejudices you have; I just care how you act. And you are now supporting someone who is racist, sexist, and not only has no integrity but doesn’t understand what honor is even for.

Quit telling me Hillary is worse. I don’t want to hear it, unless you come with actual data or a citation from a believeable source – you can tell those because they point to real data. Wikileaks doesn’t count as a real source, by the way – and I think it’s just funny that anytime I’ve seen actual content of any of those emails, they havn’t been bad at all. (I haven’t seen many of them but I’ll bet the rest are similarly innocuous. You know how I can tell? Because Hillary’s campaign itself called on the FBI to release them all – which, I note, they haven’t done.)

Mostly, quit telling me anyfuckingthing at all unless you can back it up with facts. You can have your opinion, but try to base it on reality, just for a change.

Oh, while I’m at it, I’m sick of fringe news on both sides. Quit telling me “This new thing will DESTROY Trump!” or “Hillary’s going to jail now!” because you and I both know you’re babbling utter bullshit. Let me give you a definition: “breaking news” is meant to mean “new information coming out now”; it was never intended to mean “completely ignore this headline because this story is either old news, a complete exaggeration, or unimportant trivia”. You’re not going to be able to keep a news outlet going in the long run if you just train people not to believe anything you say; that is the exact opposite of what news is supposed to do.

I feel a little better for having all that off my chest. I promise, I’ll go back to civility now.

ETA: One more thing (though I’ll keep this civil). “Make America Great Again”? A country that is great for only a small part of its populace is not a great country. I’m feeling this at present because I’m listening to the audiobook version of “Friday the Rabbi Slept Late”. It portrays a social setting not too unlike the one I grew up in, just a little more prosperous, just a few years before I was born – right around the time my parents got married. I have reason to think it’s a reasonably faithful portrayal. The thing I didn’t notice when I last read this book, probably in my teens, is how hellish it would be to live in, as a woman. Such limited expectations, so little hope, so few ways to escape. Ick.

Mirrored from Dichroic Reflections.


dichroic: (Default)

April 2019

1415 1617181920


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags