My Impressions and Thoughts from Attending Talk by Rachel Maddow at Stanford University

I went to see Rachel Maddow speak at Standford, her Alma Mater, last night, Saturday, March 16th. She stated she had not been back to Standford since she graduated 19 years ago. Maddow turns 40 next week. She grew up in Castro Valley and graduated from Castro Valley High. During high school she stated she was a jock and an outcast. After Standford she went on to become a prestigious Rhode Scholar earning a PhD from Oxford University. She went on to do HIV activism work for several years until she started doing radio. She had her own show on AirAmerica for a couple of years and then started contributing to MSNBC, later scoring her own one hour show, The Rachel Maddow Show, which has won Emmy's and is critically acclaimed. She has quite a popular and passionate fan base, of which I include myself, but not without reservations.
Here is a link to the Standford article about the talk... A good read: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/16/maddow-visits-stanford-for-first-time-since-graduating/
Overall, it was worth going to see her speak. Rachel Maddow is funny, intelligent, full of wit, is inspiring, knowledgeable, has a great personality, and is not bad on the eyes either. I have had a crush on her from the first moment I watched her on Tucker Carlson's show, back when he was on MSNBC. My Dad told me about her one day. He said, I think you might like this person. Well, he was right.
I think the reason I like Rachel Maddow, besides her being an out and proud butch lesbian and looking quite dapper, geeky, and boyish, (which is not only daring in breaking with social convention, is quite adorable), is she reminds me of myself. This talk at Stanford confirmed that more so. Although we also have stark differences.
I would be remiss to not state clearly that although I have to admit my affection for Miss Maddow, I have serious criticisms of her as well. I am not the type of fan that gushes at her mere presence and then lets her get away with bloody hell. I have major reservations about her political stances and I intend to lay those out here....
Her talk about her days of queer and HIV activism in college and her commitment to ethics and doing what is right, was touching. She stated when she figured out she was gay and part of he gay community she felt an obligation to help end the HIV crisis, which she described as a "genocide" of the gay community in the early 90's. So although she noted she felt, isolated from the Standford community, as she was "one of only two out gay people" in her freshmen class, she decided to take advantage of what Standford could offer her. Later she talked about how much society has changed on LGBT acceptance-- so much so that anti-gay ideas are now seen as our of fashion and a no-no among young people. She also talked about the importance of being out, which resonated with me personally. But I digress...
So she decided to use a university full of privilege to try and help those without it. She took public policy classes, classes in statistics, and did an honor's thesis in ethics and society, on the dehumanization of those living with HIV. Which has been read by every senior thesis student in ethics and society for the past ten years, among other papers.
Rachel spoke of the "bad activism" she did in college. One demonstration she participated in she described as holding up signs outside of a talk by William F. Buckley. She stated she later got internships doing HIV activist and policy work and became active in Act Up! Rachel noted she is the type to pick battles she thinks she can win-- choosing to concentrate on equal and just treatment for those with HIV living inside prisons. She used Standford to learn how to effectively debate, and win over those in power to her own positions in order to persuade people to come to the side of social justice. She encouraged everyone in the audience, no matter what discipline they are in, to learn how to make an effective argument. She also encouraged people to become good writers... as writing matters and can persuade. She inspired me more to continue to write!
Her start as a queer campus activist and learning the ropes on how to speak truth to power, really reminded me of myself. I would not be who I am today if it were not for my activism in college and what it taught me. That was the foundation upon which I created a deep understanding of the history of the struggles for civil, social, and human rights, social injustice, and developed a life-long commitment to the movement for liberation of all people. I got the feeling that Rachel was much more radical in her college days.. but moderated her positions as she hit the "real world."
Rachel Maddow describes herself as a "national security liberal." Whereas, I describe myself as a socialist. Although we started in similar enough places, our paths diverged. She went on to be a political commentator and de facto celebrity on TV, while I became a social worker.
I must confess a few things about Rachel Maddow irk me. One is she dresses in what I would call drag, for her show and MSNBC appearances. She wears make up, puts a bunch of goopy product in her hair, and wears women's business suits. But in all other aspects of her life she effectively a nerdy dykey masculine woman who wears men's clothes. She doesn't wear makeup or do anything special to her hair in "real life." She wears low key t-shirts, jeans, and tennis shoes. Not to mention her big nerdy glasses-- she must wear contacts on her show. I do not respect those who conform and change who they are to mold themselves to society's stupid standards-- in this case of beauty for women. I wish she were more authentically herself on TV.
It is very odd to me when she shows up on late night talk shows looking like herself, but on her show she looks like someone trying too hard to be feminine. The pressure on female news anchors is enormous.. and maybe she thinks this is just what you do to get this really cool job. But I think she has some bargaining power now and could start to integrate her own look. Chris Hayes wears glasses on his show. It just bothers me that someone who states they are out and proud about being gay would compromise who they are-- their gender expression etc. And I think this is a good example about how Rachel Maddow and I differ. I am very uncompromising and radical, whereas she is perfectly willing to moderate  her looks and positions if they are politically or otherwise expedient. That leads me to have less respect for her, but alas, no one is perfect.
Another large part of the night was her talking about her book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. She starts out with the premises that we need to go to war and we need a military. Right there she loses me. You can tell in her heart of hearts she wishes we could get rid of war, but doesn't think it's possible. So she accepts war as an unfortunate but necessary evil. Whereas, I believe war is a choice.
She also heaped lots of praise on the military, stating that Americans are not doing enough to support our troops. She stated they are fighting our wars for us and making all the sacrifices while not even our taxes have gone up to pay for the war. While I agree military personnel deserve good treatment when they return from war, I would go a step further. I say bring them home from war NOW, close up all military bases around the world, and do what is ultimately respecting our troop's humanity-- END WAR PERMANENTLY.
We need to put an indefinite moratorium on military conflict. War is not good for human beings-- it wrecks them physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually. Rachel highlighted the cost of war on the soldiers and their families, but failed to mention that it's war itself that creates this trauma. And the only way to stop it is to end all war. She did warn us that she picks battles she thinks she can win. She said those who work for world peace she wishes luck to because she essentially sees that as an unwinnable issue. Sadly, I believe when you write something off as impossible you never try to achieve it, and thus that is a self-fulfilling prophecy and it won't be achieved.
Rachel went on to speak of how alienated we are from soldiers and how alienated they are from us. Stating we treat soldiers with combination of pity, hero worship, and fear, which makes them the "other." That we don't understand them and they don't understand us. It's true that military and civilian culture differ starkly. But that makes sense given war is hell, the military culture is destructive, and combat is dehumanizing. It does a good job at systematically destroying the human soul. Many come back with PTSD, clinical depression, and chronic anxiety. This often leads to soldiers to killing others (often times their loved ones) and taking their own lives-- in fact more soldiers have died by suicide after they returned from Iraq and Afghanistan than in those wars themselves.
When people come back from war they are different people because they had very difference experiences-- experiences no one should have. It would be hard for anyone to relate to that. While we do need increased empathy for soldiers...I would argue we need to focus on a longer term root solution-- ending war so no one has to ever go through that ever again.
Rachel wants us to feel the collective pain of war and the social consequences-- in part so that the soldiers feel we are with them and in part because then maybe we will think twice before entering into wars. She stated we are not sacrificing as a nation for the war effort. I have to disagree with her about that. We have given tax dollars... which took away from lots of other things we could have funded-- more important things I would argue. In addition, I know personally I spent several years of life dedicated to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing the troops home. I marched in several large demonstrations, did campus peace organizing, wrote letters to the editor, and protested military recruiters who came to campus. I call that doing something. Something called trying to bring peace instead of war. In addition, many of my Masters in Social Work colleagues since graduation have been working with vets who are homeless and suffer mental illness. Lots of Americans support the military in a lot of ways that not many people are not aware of. But it's happening. My point is why should we be trying to repair broken human beings, when we can prevent it from happening to begin with??? Is that not the most ethical thing to do?
She stated she wrote the book to try to bring solidarity to soldiers and shine more of a light on how Americans are not feeling the true impact of war and not contributing to the war effort. Sorry Rachel, I will not contribute to wars I feel are unjust. There is a large difference between supporting human beings fighting in war and supporting the war they are in. I support troops in the best way I know how-- I call for their humane treatment while in the military (an end to sexism, racism, and homophobia-- including harassment and rape), for comprehensive medical, psychological, and all other services for all military personnel, and I demand their immediate draw down from all military conflicts. 
The truth is it is our foreign policy that gets us into this mess to begin with. We take a very aggressive foreign policy.. a scorch and burn.. shock and awe.. imperialist empire-building hegemony might makes right tactic. We act as if that is our only choice-- to "defend ourselves"-- not our lives in actuality (although the war propaganda machine tells us different-- that we should be scared of another 9/11 at any given moment) so much as America's "interests." Which translates into the interests of rich and powerful Americans. If war didn't make people money the wars would become meaningless. Rachel Maddow never uttered the words "military industrial complex." But I know that is what drives the madness. The truth is war is not in the best interest of Americans. War, torture, and drones make us less safe. They make people more angry with us, more fearful, and more likely to want to retaliate and seek revenge.
We have another choice. Which is an ironic choice given Maddow's original topic of discussion-- persuasion. She stated she took advantage of Stanford's education to learn how to be persuasive and win people over. That's exactly the type of work we should be doing around the world. It's called diplomacy. It's hard work but has a big pay off. Diplomacy takes time and it takes money. But the results would be so much greater than anything positive war could ever give us.
Everyone has an unmet need and if we helped others meet those needs we would see less animosity from others. For instance, with just a fraction of the money we spend on war we could eliminate hunger in the entire world. When people live in a society that is less stratified they feel more secure and less desperate. They are less likely to be depressed, anxious, and looking to survive by any means necessary. They are going to be less susceptible to being easily seduced into a fundamentalist belief systems. Research has proven that stress leads to violence and hierarchy leads to powerless people abusing others.
We could help free the world from this crap, but we choose not to. We have enough resources in the world at this point to give people what they need. But it would mean we would have to redistribute the resources that people in power have horded. That is the hitch. Our society cannot fundamentally change unless we take the power back from the owners-- the dictators of our lives. These are the exact same people who perpetuate wars to begin with for their own greedy ends. Rachel, when we do an ethical gut check, things like war, torture, and drones simply don't pass muster.
Rachel's argument is much more toned down than my own. She believes we just need to go back to the founding framers conceptions and make war very hard to get into. She believes in congressional oversight and the War Powers Act. She thinks that the country should decide to go to war realizing the full consequences and willing to make the sacrifices necessary. The problem is once the government decides to go to war, they convince the country to support it via propaganda in the media.
She also believes there are just wars. Whereas, I don't. Rachel is hoping we just have fewer wars. However, any war is wrong. Furthermore, we have gotten very far away from self-defense. We now start "pre-emptive" wars that no one knows about. We can't even be sure there is supposed "just cause" or actual reason to believe we are in "imminent danger." The president is doing lots of things behind our backs and there are no checks and balances, no oversight, no transparency, and no accountability. We are just supposed to trust that whatever they are doing it must be the right thing to do. I don't know about you, but I don't trust this government. And I wouldn't trust any government that I did not have a true say in.
Rachel said that we spend way too much money on defense and on that much I can agree. She asked how many nuclear weapons we really need and I held up my hand in a big fat ZERO. She stated that one is 10 times the strength of Hiroshima and we have 5,000. Overkill much? She said the same goes for all kinds of military technology and equipment we don't actually need. She said since it's lying around it sometimes gives people an excuse to use it.... which is a dangerous slippery slope. The government takes my tax dollars and uses it to kill people. That has got to end.
"And the leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every time we drop our bombs in North Vietnam, President Johnson talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They are talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but one day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. All of this is saying that, in the final analysis, means and ends must cohere because the end is pre-existent in the means, and ultimately destructive means cannot bring about constructive ends."
~Martin Luther King, Jr., "A CHRISTMAS SERMON" 24 December 1967
In the end as eloquent and charming as Rachel Maddow is, in some ways she is an apologist for some of the exact policies she claims she is against. Which smacks of hypocrisy. That is what pragmatism and incrementalism does. It leeches into your soul and corrupts you. It whispers in your ear that mere reforms are good enough and the best you can get. You start to settle for it and accept that it's "just life" and "life is unfair." Well, I am sick of people making excuses for why we cannot become the country and the world I know we are capable of becoming. We have to have higher expectations for ourselves and our potential.
The name of Rachel's book is "Drift" but we did not drift into the military policy we have now. It was designed that way on purpose. The amping up of the military industrial complex is a deliberate phenomenon propelled by greed, arrogance, superiority, and hunger for power, control, and dominance. The rich are to blame, but not solely. All of us contribute in some way to this system's continual existence. Most of us are complicit in it because we do nothing to stop it.
Maddow was not forthcoming about the fact that her father is former military-- a former Air Force Captain. My feeling is Maddow has always wanted to follow in her family's legacy and secretly wanted to join the military herself. Only because of the don't ask, don't tell policy she couldn't because she was an out lesbian. So Drift is her way of somehow contributing to the war effort and helping national security.
She argues for more sane military policy. Which is ironic, because war is insane. And the idea that we are just doing what we have to do to protect ourselves, is insane. We don't have to do anything. It's a choice. An inhumane and unethical one. And Rachel Maddow of all people, given her intellectually rigorous philosophical and ethical education and background, should know this. Yet she has somehow talked herself out of that... because it seems an unwinnable pipe dream. We need more dreamers in this world who take risks and push for systematic change... and less folks who play it safe and resign themselves to accepting injustice.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
~Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

Queer Feminism: United by Difference

Queer Feminism: United by Difference

Originally Printed in The Socialist, Magazine of the Socialist Party USA

2013 Issue #1

http://socialistparty-usa.org/socialist/2013/tsfeb13.pdf

 Lesbians and other queer people have played a central and integral role within the feminist movement. This has not always been recognized, nor have queer folks’ contributions been appreciated. Queer people have been invisible to many. However, as socialist feminists we believe in the intersection of identities and of oppression. There are multiple layers of oppression that intersect along identity lines. Long have we seen the impact that capitalism has on minorities. Yet, queer folks are undervalued even among some socialist feminists. Some believe that class is the only factor socialists should organize around. Many disregard identity as a factor; but it remains an important part of who we are and a central focus of the onslaught against all people.

In the past, lesbians were unwelcome in the feminist movement. They were told that their sexual orientation had nothing to do with the goals of feminism, and that being open about their queer identity would harm the movement and be a “distraction.” Some lesbians continued to openly organize within the movement but were often treated as pariahs; attempts were made to silence them. While lesbians are included in the modern day mainstream feminist movement, their needs are often ignored.

Within socialist feminist circles, queer issues are considered backburner issues to more pressing issues. However, queer women have been central to many movements and organizations, even though their queerness is not usually a focus.

The good thing about socialist feminism is it focuses on inclusion. Socialist feminists recognize the fluidity of gender, sexuality, and the complexity of human beings. We also see that there is worth and value in feelings and personal experiences as well as rationale and logic. We value that the personal is political; and we see the connections between the everyday struggle of queer people and that of other marginalized groups. Many socialist feminists do recognize that identity matters.

Capitalism uses any perceived difference in identity and labels it as a weakness. Capitalism uses difference to exploit and oppress the “other.” The recognition of these exploitations unites us all in a common struggle for social and economic justice. Furthermore, as much as patriarchy impacts both women and men, queer people are further impacted and threatened by its constricting, limiting, and controlling ways. I believe the destiny of all people is bound up in the liberation of queer people.

 While some feel feminism or queer culture has little to do with socialism, others have a critical and radical critique that combines feminism, queer theory, and a socialist perspective. Third-wave feminism has queered feminism. Third-wave feminism includes the rejection of gender essentialism and the gender binary, makes queer theory central in its analysis, and is sex-positive. Although there are some biological aspects of gender, much of it is socially constructed -- which means it can be deconstructed. It is the aim of many socialist feminists to deconstruct gender and highlight and expand the ability of all human beings to experience all life has to offer (feminine, masculine, and everywhere in-between).

As socialist feminists, we need to examine and dissect gender, patriarchy, sexism, strict gender roles, misogyny, and male chauvinism, among other barriers, to achieve full liberation for all people. We believe the capitalist and patriarchal systems benefit from and perpetuate the social constructions of gender, which bind us and control us. In addition, we believe that socialist feminism can be practiced in our everyday lives through engaging in feminist process and consciously creating socialist feminism as well as within the workplace and our organizations. This can look different ways to different people, and there are also various different kinds of feminists too. So it is very complex. However, I encourage people to look up these terms, ideas, and concepts through books and online as well as asking feminist people what they mean to them. Individuals must take initiative to learn about feminist concepts themselves as they recognize the importance of doing so.

Most importantly, as socialist feminists we believe systemic, institutional, and structural changes must be made through reforms and revolutionary means so that a socialist feminist society can be realized. This is what divides us from the mainstream “liberal” feminist movement. The liberal feminist movement believes that reforms are the tools we need to employ to help women compete in a capitalist society, and do not encourage we use reform or revolutionary means/ideas to transcend gender constructs, redefine gender, or create a truly egalitarian, non-hierarchal society. 

            Another aspect I believe is important to a queer critique of feminism is that feminism cannot be realized without the participation of all people of all genders and all sexes. For many, feminism is something for, of, and by women. This excludes transwomen, transmen, men, genderqueer individuals, etc. In the first wave of feminism, lesbians were excluded, and in the current wave of feminism, many are excluding transwomen, transmen, and queer people who do not fit the gender binary. Many feminists also exclude anyone who self-identifies as a man. I see this as a barrier to progress.

            I believe minorities need allies and allies need minorities. This is how unity is achieved --and how solidarity is formed. Partnership and collaboration is necessary for us to build the society we need and will thrive in together. When patriarchal structures, socially constructed and strict gender roles, and the power dynamic integrated into these structures, are dismantled and abolished, it will directly benefit everyone. Whereas some believe men benefit from a patriarchal capitalist society, socialist feminists know that men suffer much more than they gain from capitalism and patriarchy. 

            Socialist feminist queers advocate for a non-hierarchical egalitarian society that is free from homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, internalized forms of the later, heterosexism, and heteronormatively. We call on all people to be united in class struggle to realize a classless socialist feminist society.

Marriage equality is a modern day example of the clash between class and sexuality. Within the queer community a lot of energy, money, and activism has been directed at winning marriage equality. Although I see marriage equality as an important civil and human right, there are more fundamentally important and immediate issues the LGBT community must focus upon. These include: homophobia, bullying, hate crimes, murders and rapes, homelessness, sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism and substance abuse, sexual exploitation, discrimination in housing and employment, and heteropatriachy. Not to mention mental illness, which disproportionately impacts the LGBT community due to the factors above. These are pressing concerns that are all too often ignored and under-funded by government, non-profits, and even grassroots organizations and individual activists. 

Furthermore, there is an argument to be made that marriage equality further privileges Euro-American men. Whereas, the rest of us would not receive the benefits of marriage rights or it would not make that much of a different to the quality of our lives should we choose to marry, given the opposition and adversity we face in society at large. To me, all people deserve the protections and benefits of marriage, regardless if they are in a relationship, are single, or have a different family arrangement (such as three people). Personally, I see marriage equality as a steppingstone to greater rights for everyone, although I acknowledge not everyone even within the queer community agrees on this. To me this is not an either/or issue. We need to organize and fight for a better quality of life for all queer people on every front and take every opportunity to do so.

We must remember that for many people marriage is about deep emotions, love, and other intangible complexities that cannot be simply brushed aside. As socialists, we recognize that human needs are critical, and, thus, I believe there is room at the table for all human needs to be addressed. This issue may very well be decided upon by the U.S. Supreme Court soon. In the meantime and after marriage equality is won, we have to recommit ourselves to fighting for justice for queer people of every stripe who may be facing life and death struggles along class lines. This will require a class analysis and socialist organizing.

Socialist feminism is a great equalizer. We clearly see the intersection of all types of oppression and the disproportionate impact on queer people of color, the disabled, mothers and fathers, fat queer folks, youth, seniors etc. Any form of “difference” adds to the chance of further strife and marginalization. However, we should also remember that our lives and differences are worth celebrating. We are all worthy of living amazing lives, and we can all realize our own potential for happiness. Part of that realization takes work. We must unify our approach to ending oppression on every level, both by organizing inside self-identified groups and by working together as human beings.

Moving forward, having our own identity groups (such as the Women’s Commission or Queer Commission) is not enough; we need entire organizations, such as the SPUSA and all segments of our society (not just feminists or queer people) to find common reasons to ban together, for our destiny is inextricably tied together. We need each other if we are going to overcome capitalism and heteropatriachy, which impacts us all. There is hope for a different world, filled with acceptance and appreciation of differences. But this will only happen if we recognize our common vision that links us all together now. It will only happen if we start working together to actualize that vision and take action, and not despite our diverse individual identities—but because of them. We are united by difference. My hope is that this realization will lead us to unified goals and solidarity in action moving forward.

*I encourage folks to look up any concepts and/or terms used here not defined due to space/time.

Why You Shouldn't Vote for Obama

 

Unlike many people, I do not strategically vote. I vote my conscience. I vote for whom I would really like to see represent who I really am and what I really stand for. What is nice is there is a candidate like that. And if you searched you would likely find that person too—at least someone who matched pretty closely. 

Unfortunately, there are many who falsely believe if they vote for the candidate of their liking their candidate will lose. In addition, they believe that by voting for their candidate they make someone they really don't like, win. So many people vote to block what they call a "greater evil" out of two evil choices and not for whom they really want. This is a defeatist form of voting. It ensures you get someone you don't want every time. 

"I would rather vote for someone I want, and not get it, than to vote for someone I don't want, and get it." ~Eugene Victor Debs

If we continue to vote for the lesser evil, then we are doomed to get just that-- evil. Imagine if everyone voted for whom they really wanted to see in office. If this happened it is quite possible we could elect someone totally different outside the mainstream two party capitalist system. Yet Americans are stuck in a voting pattern that every four years sticks us with the same ole same ole and progress is one step forward and five steps back constantly. It's no way to get the actual systematic, structural, and fundamental changes we need to occur. Unfortunately, I don't think I can convince the majority of folks at this time to give up strategic voting.

There are voting reforms we would need to put into law that could reduce the chance that voting for whom we want will inadvertently elect someone we don't want. These are things like instant run off voting, ranked choice voting, and proportional representation. I hope that someday we will have these electoral reforms we need and that people will feel safer to cast a vote for whom they want. 

So instead of trying to convince people to give up strategic voting, I plan to make a different case. This case is one based on moral and ethical grounds. I believe in human rights and social justice and use this standard to measure presidents by. I feel the president should be chosen based on ethical decision making. So any inhumane act is unjustifiable in my eyes. If someone has committed an inhumane action this should be considered in the decision to vote for someone. In this instance, my argument will also address whether President Obama has done more bad than good. In that vein, I want to make a case for not voting for Obama. I don't even need to make a case for not voting for Romney, as he's clearly the greater of the two evils. Although, not that much more evil than most people think, as I intend to prove through this article. 

I would be incredibly difficult for me to list everything Obama has done that was bad. Why? Because there is A LOT. Most people vastly underestimate what negative things Obama has done. Mostly because people are simply not aware of them and because people are blinded to them by being scared of what they see as the only alternative-- Republicans. Furthermore, some people blindly follow Obama-- mostly staunch Democrats who think in black and white terms. To them if Obama isn't a Republican, he must be awesome, which is false thinking. Democrats have a long history of doing bad things. LBJ and Vietnam. Clinton with NAFTA and welfare reform. Any president who’s ever gotten us into an unjust war. That's about everyone! There is plenty of wrong things Democrats have done-- that is an indisputable fact.

The flip side is that the Democrats have done a good job at highlighting only “positive” things the president has done, and hiding all of the negative things from people. This is part of a huge propaganda machine perpetuated through the mainstream media that keeps pumping out the lies. That, and they see everything the president has done as good, whereas, much of it isn’t. This skewed version of reality they portray is what allows them to keep doing bad things without any consequence or check and balance.  

In this article I will use a radical perspective and also a very high ethical standard to judge actions taken and legislation passed by the Obama Whitehouse. So if one isn't viewing these events by this particular lens, they may not see things the same way. Perception is everything. However, I hope to make a solid case that Obama, overall, does not deserve our vote. I do this in the hope to raise awareness. 

I do not fool myself into believing it can totally change someone's vote. However, it can inform and raise consciousness on what Obama has really done. I think that in and of itself is worth the effort in trying to examine his record and its implications. 

First let me say that Obama is the ultimate compromiser and pragmatist. He really meant it when he said Republicans were his friends. That this is not a “red America, and a blue America, but the United States of America.” That fundamental belief has motivated him to try and work with Republicans and often compromise, not just promises he made before becoming president, but compromise principles he said he held to the point of total capitulation. I understand how politics works, and some compromise and reconciliation is necessary to get anything done. But Obama often gives things away and folds way too early in the game. He's way too appeasing and sacrifices too much. 

On the Bush tax cuts, he said he would get rid of them, but instead he let them stay. On healthcare, he didn't even allow an exploration of the single-payer or the public option, he went along with what was a Heritage Foundation, conservative think tank, idea to impose privatized insurance health care on everyone or they would face a penalty. The “affordable care act” was a huge giveaway to the drug and insurance corporations, which means overall the average American lost.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. This was never brought up again. In addition, he allowed for a bad deal to be made so congress would approve raising the debt ceiling. This deal includes automatic cuts to social security if other cuts are not made in time. We have no idea yet what these cuts will entail but it’s not looking good. Obama has said he is prepared to cut medicare and social security and has proven he is not interested in fighting to save them. Furthermore, did not close Guantanamo Bay, as promised either.

Obama promised during his campaign he would be against special interests and politics as usual. He promised he was a Washington outsider who would shake things up and reject lobbyist’s influence. But he has taken corporate money during his campaigns and big corporations have played a major part of his administration. It is obvious they have influenced his policies. In fact, he put plutocrats into high level cabinet positions with corporate insiders like Timothy Geithner ( former head of the Federal Reserve), Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke (both from Goldman Sachs). These are the type of folks who make up Obama’s inner circle of advisors and insulate him with their influence and mode of thinking. Despite Obama’s eloquent “I will stand up for the little guy against the rich guy” verbiage, he has proven himself a “fierce defender” of capitalism and corporations, not the common people. People need to stop listening to his words so much, and start looking at his actions a lot more. These are just some examples of how Obama has compromised his values and promises to the American people. Believe me, the list is long and disappointing. He has gone back on so many things he said he believed in and said he would do, and has not been the “champion” of the “middle class” he promised to be.

On top of compromises he made, which sold the American people down the river to benefit the rich and privileged, he made decisions that were wrong. These include: massive deportations of undocumented immigrants, and a record number of whistleblower prosecutions but not one for those that tortured during the Bush Administration or a single prosecution of a Wall Street executive or financial firm that screwed us over during the 2008 economic crisis. Not to mention the continued war in Afghanistan with a huge increase in troops, medical marijuana raids in states that have passed medical marijuana legalization, such as in my home state of California, and a drone program which kills people from a kill list, including American citizens, without due process. That is a direct violation and assault on the constitution. On top of that, he expanded the Patriot Act and all other Bush era defense policies, launched FBI raids on antiwar activists, and appointed Monstanto executives to the FDA. The stimulus package he lead the passage of gave away tax payer money to banks and corporations instead of to help people get jobs or save their houses from being foreclosed upon.

Under Obama the United States has dropped bombs in six countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, which is two more than Bush ever touched. In fact, he was simultaneously drone-bombing five countries – Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan all at the same time. Obama feels perfectly empowered to take military action without informing Congress or getting congressional approval for military force because if no Americans are being killed than in his view it’s not really a war. This happened with Libya in particular, which he did without any American lives being threatened, without enacting the War Powers Act, or consulting congress. 

Moreover, Obama has encouraged Congress to increase military spending. In fact, the Obama administration has spent more than the previous Bush Administration on the military. Not to mention he is totally in unconditional support of Israel and has done nothing to help the Palestinian people. He has actually expanded of deep water oil drilling, even after the BP oil spill happened off the coast of Mississippi. In fact, Obama believes in “clean coal” and “clean nuclear” power and has pushed these myths, even though in reality they are bad for the environment and for human beings.

Furthermore, Obama has expanded Bush era assaults on our civil liberties, the constitution, and bill of rights. Obama extended the Patriot Act without any changes, in some ways strengthening it and going further than Bush even did. Another large assault on civil liberties has been the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill, which was passed. It created legalized indefinite detention as some sort of “preventative” act. Bush pulled some of this in his administration but it was done illegally. Obama made it legal to do it. It was passed by the majority of Republicans and Democrats and gives the power to the president to detain anyone, including Americans, indefinitely without charges. Obama has said he would not use it, but if it exists he has the right to at any time and we would not know it. Also the next person who gets into office could chose to use it. 

One of the largest assaults has been Obama’s unmanned drone program. Which he may justify by saying it saves innocent life. But the people he has ordered the killing of have never been proven guilty. Besides the fact that the death penalty is wrong in and of itself, there are no trials and no convictions before people are killed. In fact, there has even been extrajudicial assassination of American citizens this way. This includes one American-born sixteen year old boy. The death penalty excludes anyone under eighteen in America. Not to mention that drone strikes kill a lot of civilians. Obama may take the stance that this is utilitarian; kill a few to save even more. Many support this idea but I think people have a disconnect. They see civilian deaths as casualties of war, worth the sacrifice in order to supposedly keep us safe and protect people. Like if a train is coming and it will either kill one person or five people...which one would you chose? They feel they are saving more lives by sacrificing some. However, I do not believe the ends justify the means. The issue is that is a false dichotomy. We do not have to kill to make people safe. We can pursue a totally different approach to foreign policy, one that involves diplomacy and cooperation. People don't even think there are alternatives when there are. 

I think Obama’s drone program is super unethical, unacceptable, and unjustifiable. Drones have killed hundreds of innocent civilians and terrorize thousands who are driven into stress and anxiety with fear they will be killed as loud drones buzz above them 24 hours a day. This is not good foreign policy. It creates more blowback, which means it will not make us safer because more people plan to do harm when their loved ones are killed. Plus it is immoral, not to mention illegal. This secret program has to end. Obama will only expand it.

I am sick of Obama apologists and excuses as to why Obama has not done this or that. There is no excuse for killing innocent children, for instance. The world in which Obama's hand is supposedly forced is completely an illusion. Unethical actions will continue to happen as long as people allow them to. There is no excuse for this and it cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Moreover, there is so much Obama hasn’t done he could have done. So many say well, he inherited the awful mess of the Bush Administration, he couldn’t do all we expected him to do in just four years, particularly with Republicans blocking progress in congress. While there is some validity to that argument, the president is the most powerful person in the world. He did so much bad, as I have demonstrated, and he had just as much power to have a positive influence. Sure, he did some good things. Most of them are half-measures, small reforms, and nowhere near what we need and deserve. But theoretically they have brought us some semblance of progress. For that I am grateful. I suppose it could have been worse, but my point overall is it could have been much better. The good Obama has done does not outweigh the bad. Even the good was piddly. People say give him another four years and see what he does. And I fully expect he will be re-elected and I warn you all now, do not hold your breath that he will suddenly fulfill all your dreams from the 2008 campaign or even his own promises from 4 years ago. He will continue to do the bad he has done. And for that, he does not deserve my vote. 

People do not realize there are alternatives to the two party crapitalist duopoly, but there are plenty if one is willing to look. I plan to vote for Stewart Alexander, Socialist Party USA candidate, whom I hope secures write-in status in the state of California. People do not realize there is an alternative to the capitalist system itself. Capitalism delivers on making profit for the few and does not serve human needs. What we surely deserve is a true socialist to bring about the fundamental and systematic changes we need-- a society that serves us and not the rich. There are much better ways to go about economic, social, foreign policy and much better candidates who can do a much better job than Obama has done. As long as people continue to vote for evil, that is what they will get. We are worth better and our choices matter. So choose wisely and understand the implications of your vote.  

American Myths are Killing Us: How the Way We Live is Self-defeating and What We Can Do About It

If we supported people from the beginning of life, then we would not have the social problems we have now.

Let me explain what I mean... Let's start by describing what life is like now and why.

Most of us survive mostly off our own immediate family. If one is born into a low socio-economic status family, a family in poverty, all indicators show they do not have high quality existence. They struggle with health, emotional and social well being, may experience abuse and neglect, etc. Being in poverty is very stressful for all family members and it has a huge impact on people. Not just in the immediate, but generally for the rest of a person's life. This could mean developing mental illness, substance abuse issues and other addictions, and other negative effects from trauma. In addition, the likelihood one ever gets out of poverty, if they started in poverty, is very low.

According to one cultural belief in America, if a person just works hard enough they can pull themselves out of poverty-- "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." However, this is a myth. If a person doesn't have boots how can they pull them up? The fact is most people born into poverty will never leave it, and this is not because they do not work hard. In fact, most poor folks work harder than most wealthy people, working several grueling manual labor jobs. But the jobs they can get are super low wage jobs and they cannot afford to hire nanny's to take care of their children or maids to clean their house.

Women in poverty, in particular, work several jobs, take care of their children, cook, clean, and run errands, not to mention are expected to take care of their partners. That is part of why poor people are so stressed out-- they have very little time to relax, decompress, and participate in self-care. Not to mention when a parent is away from their child so much of the time, this causes stress on the child.

Children need close bonds with their parents so they can attune to them, develop healthy attachments, and mirror the parent's modeling. The rise in childhood mental illness has been positively correlated to poverty, stress, and lack of parent contact. In addition, families under stress and suffering from inequality and being at the bottom of the hierarchy, strive for power and control. One of the negative consequences of this is violence and abuse. 

Furthermore, substance abuse and other addictions often come into the picture as people try to find a way to cope with the psycho-social stressors in their lives. Addictions often lead to children being neglected and unsupervised, where their chances of abuse increase. People vastly underestimate the impact of abuse, neglect, and trauma on the developing child. For instance, did you know that a young child who simply witnesses their parents in a domestic violence situation, can get brain damage? A child doesn't even have to be touched for trauma to effect them. Imagine what happens to children who do face actual violence themselves, or who are emotionally abused, neglected, or sexually abused? We know that abuse is wide-spread, and that one in three girls and one in six boys has been sexually abused. That is astronomical and means abuse is wide spread and commonplace. The consequences of wide-spread abuse is life-long. Often this leads to a generational cycle of abuse continuing on in a never-ending repeating loop, which makes us stuck in a destructive pattern that keeps hurting people and society.

Another cultural belief in America is that if a person struggles to, "make it all on their own," that they somehow deserve more. This again, is a myth. The idea of an individual who works hard being deserving of more is wrong. Everyone deserves a good life regardless of hard work. Besides this, most people are brainwashed into believing that rich people are wealthy due to their own hard work. It's actually the opposite.

Wealthy folks are born into wealth most of the time. And when someone starts out with a lot of money they are able to use it to buy their way to the top. This works by living in relative ease, comfort, and luxury, going to the best schools, having connections and networks to get the best jobs, being able to purchase whatever they want or need with existing money their parents or family members give them, having money to invest so that they make money with money, and having lots of tax shelters, loopholes, and subsides etc. which increases their wealth even more. The rich live a truly privileged and charmed life, as capitalist society is set up to benefit them over all others. Furthermore, the way in which the wealthy accumulated their wealth is all rooted in a system of economic inequality and exploitation of others.

In fact, most people became rich because they and/or their ancestors exploited others, either through slavery, indentured servitude, through wage slavery, etc. On top of that all that, the tax cuts they receive, their ability to invest, have jobs that take advantage of others, and special treatment and favors they receive, has actually made it so there is a redistribution of the rest of our combined wealth upwards. The top 1% own 40% of the wealth in the entire country. And the top 1% own almost 40 times as much as the bottom 50%. They didn't earn it, they stole it. And this is immoral, unethical, inhumane, and wrong. No one needs or deserves that much money and the way they got it isn't right and was not earned fair and square.

In addition, most people lack a basic understanding of exactly how much we rely on each other. NO ONE is making it on their own. Unless one lives on a desert island by themselves, the average person relies on possibility thousands of people for their everyday existence. Think about it... who made your food, clothes, or house? Who makes and delivers good and services? Who provides you education and healthcare? Who took care of you as child and who takes care of you as an adult? Don't fool yourself by saying you take care of yourself. We all rely on others to make life work for us and to survive.

Could you imagine if you had to do everything to survive yourself? Could you imagine what life would be like if you were all alone? Frankly, it would suck. It would be incredibly difficult and on top of it, incredibly isolating, lonely, and alienating.

Studies by neuro-biologist Robert Sapolsky out of Stanford University, who studies stress, prove that human beings are social animals. We thrive on social interaction and connection. Also Salpolsky has proven that in a society with hierarchy and domination, stress greatly increases. Chemicals are released into the body when we are stressed, such as Cortisol, are bad for us if they stay in our bodies long-term. Chronic stress is directly linked to chronic diseases, mental illness, and early death. Chronic stress also does bad things to the nervous system. Stress kills neurons in the part of the brain called the hippocampus, which impacts memory. It also has depletes pathways of dopamine, which causes depression, among other mood changes. There are even more effects on our health and well being, and it spreads to those around us, and thus the impact stress are huge.

What Saolsky also concludes is if we lived in a non-hierarchical society, where there was peace among people who cooperated instead of competed, who supported each other instead of trying to dominate one another, and where everyone helped each other out to survive, we would all live longer happier lives. This is not up for debate, it's a fact.

In fact, Sapolsky saw this happen first hand when studying baboons in Africa. When a group of dominant baboon's died by eating contaminated food, the entire community became more tranquil and lived longer less stressful lives. For more about Robert Sapolsky's research and findings please read here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/march7/sapolskysr-030707.html.

So we know that psychological distress can not only cause us major illness, misery, and suffering, but kill us. According to this article that is a fact: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/AnxietyStress/34003. The bottom of this above article suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) could help reduce stress and it's negative impacts because it allows us to shift our internal interpretations of stressful events in our lives so they appear less upsetting. CBT is supposed to help us develop a more realistic view instead of allowing negative thoughts to distort our self concept and allow us more acceptance and control over our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Practicing mindfulness can also be very helpful to combating the effects of stress on the body and mind. I believe CBT and mindfulness practice are extremely helpful given the stressful environment we are living in now. However, it should not be a substitute for changing the way things are at a fundamental level.

We cannot just accept that life is stressful, so oh well, get over it. It doesn't work that way. There is no real way to "get over" stress. There is a way to reduce it and cope with..to be resilient in the face of it by utilizing positive coping skills and stress management and reduction techniques. In addition, some can utilize, implement, and practice these therapeutic methods better than others-- depending on temperament, personality, ones circumstances, and the impact on trauma on each individual. But to teach every human being how to practice these techniques would take a lot of time, effort, and funding. Unfortunately, our society is not currently supporting that sort of effort enough. Free therapy, for instance, is hard to come by. Therapy is generally very expensive and thus inaccessible to the average person. Although, CBT and mindfulness based practice can be taught and disseminated without a therapist. We should invest in this.
 
However, we shouldn't settle for attempts to reduce stress and end out efforts there. Treating the symptoms of dysfunction, instead of going to the root cause, is no real solution. We should work to eliminate stress altogether. This is where the idea of prevention comes in. We need to start thinking about the kind of society that would completely prevent a person from experiencing so much stress. That is the system that would bring us the best lives possible.

The society we have now is NOT set up to function in a way that brings the most prosperity for all. Our quality of life is vastly diminished by the profit-based capitalist system that governs most all aspects of our lives. It sets up a hostile environment which stresses us all out, takes time away from ourselves, our families, and communities, exploits us economically by stealing the wages we earn, over-works us, does not give us a basic standard of living and social support, and offers us no other alternatives. The system is designed on purpose this way to lock us into a perpetual system of oppression so that the rich and powerful can reap the benefits.

But what if I told you the rich and powerful also lose out? The way the system works actually creates more problems for rich people than they even realize. In fact, this system is more expensive for all of society because it leads to more social problems, which are costly to manage, and bring direct consequences outside of monetary, such as an increase in violence-- even murders. But a lot of the time the rich care about money... So we should consider just the economic impact of poverty, inequality, and hierarchy on the economic benefit of the rich.

For instance, take the child welfare system. When a child lives in poverty their chances for abuse and neglect go up due to the stress of their parent and lack of support and resources. When the child is removed from their family they end up in the foster care system. This is extremely expensive. Not to mention all the counseling services etc. that child will need. Then when the child grows up their chances of being involved in crime, being in poverty themselves, never graduating high school, becoming homeless, joining a gang, becoming pregnant at a young age, and getting on public assistance, are huge. The chances they end up abusing substances, getting into abusive relationships, and abusing and neglecting their own children, is high. This has a huge impact on our entire society. And from a purely economic standpoint, it costs a crap ton of tax payer dollars. Although the rich escape a lot of taxes, they still pay more than anyone else.

One thing to keep in mind though is all those systems-- social services, prisons, hospitals etc. make a lot of money off of dysfunctional family systems. But I would argue that the negative outcomes outweigh any economic benefit, even if we only look at money, and not the moral, ethical, human rights, or quality of life issues. In other words, all people, including the rich and powerful, are in all actuality incentivized to prevent these things from happening to begin with solely based on a simple cost/benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, those with money and power are stuck in their regressive backwards way of thinking, which realizes Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the concept that those best fit socially, survive. And those best fit in a capitalist society, are those who have money and/or have the privilege to become upwardly mobile and gain access to resources. It's a perverse concept..because it's predicated on inequality and hierarchy. It is also centralized around the idea that some people deserve to be well off and some don't, based on how hard they worked as an individual to get where they are.

If someone is poor, they are perceived to be lazy and therefore deserving of their lot in life. Many people don't feel compassion for the poor or homeless because they assume they could get it together if they were willing to work hard. But since they aren't willing, they are getting what they deserve. In addition, the people who think this way think that the poor need to learn the hard way, that if they want housing, food, etc. they better get a damn job and pay their own way. This is seen as the only right way to live. They believe the myth that people should be "self-sufficient" and "independent." Even when it is totally delusional to believe this.

If only we didn't need each other anymore what the rich believe could be true... Yet in a practical manner we still do need each other, and in a fundamental way us humans need each other to function socially-emotionally. The truth is not only do we need each other for our own well being and health, relying on each other is just more reasonable, sane, humanistic, and is in congruence with basic common sense and decency.

When we work together, we are all better off as a result. Our collective quality of life is vastly increased because we function collectively and are mutually dependent on each other. There would be less crime, less violence, less healthcare costs, less abuse, less substance use, less poverty, less infant morality, more educated more well off people, etc. if we had a system like this instead of the one we have.

It would help protect us all and save us money-- because when preventative measures aren't taken people in desperate situations take desperate measures to try and survive and the results and consequences are very expensive (such as prisons, healthcare costs, and taking care of children in poverty or the child welfare system). There are several developed countries who currently have a more human needs-based and preventive social safety net than the United States.

Countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, and even France or Germany have better ways of life. These include things such as universal healthcare, free childcare, paid vacations, good benefits, and tax payer funded college for anyone who wants to go, etc. This is the type of system we need and it would be good if we went even further-- and eliminated all profit-based mechanisms and reduced the amount of work one had to do. We could guarantee an income and basic needs to all and we could definitely afford it. Not only is the entire economic system made up, but if we simply re-prioritized our budget and how we collect taxes and how we spend the tax dollars, we'd have plenty of money to pay for the type of society we need.

Some first steps could include reducing the military budget, ending the drug war, ending all foreign wars, getting rid of all advantages for the wealthy, and increasingly the taxes on the rich by a lot. We need to eliminate economic, social, and political inequality. That is essential for a democracy to thrive. These are short term reforms that would totally shift the funding we have and be able to provide for our people a lot easier. Bigger changes could be done over time, such as making all work places co-operatives, vastly reducing working hours, allowing for a decentralized radical democracy for governance purposes, making all services publicly owned and operated, and giving the means of production to all people to workers own and operate collectively.

We need a system that benefits all people. Having such a system would create a much better society. We need to not only admit that we need each other, but that if we all worked together to fully commit to making life better for all, we would have that better world we all dream about. People assume it has to be the way it is now. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Most people assume this system is the best system in the world, and even if there was something wrong with it, there isn't anything they can do about it. But there is something fundamentally, structurally, and systematically wrong with the profit-based system. We need a human-needs based system where all get to share in the decision making, work together, and reap benefits more equally. We need that system because it works best for us and will give us what we need, want, and deserve as human beings. It would unleash and expand not only our potential and ability to self-actualize and self-activate, but our ultimate happiness as individuals and as a community. In addition, it would allow us to support our society and essentially, the entire world, to grow in every aspect of life, improving all of our lives exponentially. Furthermore, we do have the ability to make it happen.

So how do we do it? We can prevent most all maladies and social ills... by giving people what they need from the beginning and sustaining that support. If we set people up for success, they will be more prepared to become successful. If we gave, say, a young family monetary support, counseling, parenting classes, case management, free childcare and healthcare, etc. they would be much more likely to succeed. If we made sure that child's parents had a free, tax-paid college education, and a good paying job with benefits, low-cost housing, etc. then the chances that family succeeds would increase, big time. If we could do that, why would we choose not to?

And the best part is, we can! We can do this. We created everything that exists now and we can re-create what we need in the image that works best for us and humanity. We can replace this ineffective, disproportionate, and undemocratic system with one that works for us all. If we got together, we could make it happen. I believe it is already happening organically, yet slowly. I encourage everyone to start getting on board...because as a collective society we are crying out for something better... We know that we are headed for disaster on multiple fronts if we don't change our ways. We should take action before we are forced to make painful sacrifices to make the better world we need possible. Let's start now.

Life should not be such a struggle. We can make it easier and more meaningful at the same time. We can live a purposeful fantastical life filled with joy, health, well being, social connections, family, friends, creative  and collaborative work, and a fun beautiful existence where struggle is far and in between and everyone is guaranteed the basic needs of life. It can happen, we can make it happen, and we should make it happen, because it's the right thing to do, and wouldn't it be great?

Human beings are amazing, industrious, and imaginative creatures that are capable of anything. If we put all our efforts together for the good of humanity, instead of to make profit for the few, we could finally build the society and life we all deserve as human beings and get our needs met more efficiently and simply. If only we are willing to cast aside the disastrous and self-defeating myths that hold us back and come together to make it happen. Someday I know we will. I just hope for our sake, it's sooner rather than later. :)