Voting "rights"...

Do we live in a democracy? It's hard to know anymore. It's hard to know if we ever did. The definition of democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." Other definitions include terms like equality and rights. But it doesn't seem like the United States has lived up to any definition.
"In the beginning"...of this enterprise we call the United States, land-owning white men were the only people with any rights; and therefore the only people that could vote. This eventually changed to include all men. Then eventually it included land-owning former slaves. Then eventually it included women. Then eventually, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it included EVERYONE. Well, in theory it included everyone.
Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, there has been a major effort made in several parts of the country to slowly deconstruct the bill. States have passed laws challenging the Voting Rights Act in an effort to limit the voting of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and immigrants. In addition, they attempted to discriminate against the poor, the elderly, and the infirmed. Basically, what some people in this country are trying to do is take us back to 1840 when only wealthy white men could vote.
What baffles me about this is not so much that politicians would support this; because unfortunately politicians don't seen the country (or the world) through the lens of humanity, but instead through he lens of politics. Therefore, if a politician in Alabama would benefit from the disenfranchisement of poor and minority citizens in their state, they're probably going to support it, regardless of the societal repercussions of that decision. It's not necessarily true that the individual is discriminatory (though it's not necessarily true that they're not, either), they're just opportunistic. But what they fail to realize is that their opportunism has real societal consequences that will live on much longer than their political careers. A mistrust or outright disgust for the electoral system is a consequence of that opportunism. And this is especially true among minorities and the poor.
While politicians may benefit from this narrowing of the political class, in the long run you're creating a society that hates politics and politicians, and could possibly (and will probably) one day rebel. Their attempts to keep white men on top will prove fruitless in the long run, because the reality is that old white men are dying every single day. And as the old guard of opportunistic politicians die out, we see the rise of younger politicians who, though they may still be opportunistic or even discriminatory, have to be much more pragmatic in a changing world.
Which brings us to the Supreme Courts decision to strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This specific provision basically makes mandatory a review of any changes to election laws made by states that have a history of discrimination in voting laws. Congress extended section 5 in both 1970 and 1975, and again in 1982, and lastly in 2006.
Therefore, despite antipathy among members of Congress, they were willing to uphold a piece of legislation that they determined was the bedrock of equality in voting. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. The problem with this decision is that even before the SCOTUS struck down section 5, we've seen an unrelenting effort (mostly by Republicans) to disenfranchise any and all people (or rather groups) they felt would vote Democrat. There have been requirements to buy government issued IDs (essentially a poll tax), limiting of voting times, closing of voting locations, confusing ballots, etc. All of these efforts are having the desired effect of those pushing them. They're creating confusion that leads to frustration, and eventually apathy toward the electoral process.
But we can't give in this easily. If we continue to be frustrated and allow those that would disenfranchise people to win, things are only going to get worse. We're going to see more than just voting rights go out the window; but rather our civil rights as well. It's time to get mad. It's time for people who don't agree with the direction we're heading to stand in front of the tank (so to speak), to set themselves on fire (so to speak), to chain themselves to the tree (so to speak), to refuse to leave the lunch counter (so to speak). Because right now we're playing right into the game of those that want to take away rights. They want us frustrated. They want us apathetic. They want us averse to the electoral and political process. It makes it a whole lot easier for wealthy white men to dominate if no one else wants to be part of the process.
So get angry. Protest. Start a march. Write your congressman and tell them to re-pass section 5 of the voting rights act with updated numbers of voter discrimination. It's time to act. Because it's better to change things now than to wait until the change will not be what anyone expects and will have the potential to create instability.

The night is darkest...

I’m fearful for this country. I worry that we’re headed in the wrong direction. It seems as though many are bent on reshaping this country into some sort of theocratic dictatorship. And while Republicans say that they espouse freedom and liberty – and even attach Democrats and the president over the issue – there is always a place for exceptions to their rules…basically, whenever it suits their political or social ends.
Social conservatives hate abortions. Right, we get it, you’re “pro-life”. Well, guess what, most liberals don’t like abortions, either, but don’t frame the issue in that way. In fact, liberals are much more likely to teach women and men about the realities of sex and the use and availability of birth control, as well as educating women on their options if they do become pregnant by accident. Social conservatives, on the other hand, want to continue pushing abstinence-only education, limit the access to birth control, and tell women they absolutely must have the child, even though these policies have actually increased the number of abortions that women have received.
In addition, Republicans throughout the country are on the attack to limit women’s rights as a whole. They’re trying to limit women’s access to birth control, they’re trying to close down Planned Parenthood, they’re trying to tie a woman’s healthcare to whatever her boss wants to provide; it’s a mess.
But, the old saying that “the night is darkest before the dawn” seems apropos. Why are conservatives so vehement about pushing this anti-woman agenda of late? Because they see the male-only dominant power structure in this country slipping away. Their idea of “traditional” roles are being turned on their heads (since they’re still living in the 1950s), and they’re having a hard time dealing with it. This issue encompasses the idea of same-sex marriage, as well. Their idea of traditional (male/female) relationships reinforces their concept of an ideal partnership, and gay couples not only change their concepts of “traditional” relationships, but disrupt their ideas of sex/gender roles, as well.
So what am I saying? I think our night is at its darkest, and even though things seem awful right now, we’re going to soon reach the dawn, where the forces of good will truly win out.

Alright, I don’t want to start a cultural/religious war here. But I have to say that it is absolutely ridiculous the rhetoric that is coming from the religious (specifically Catholic) right about the Obama administrations so-called “war on religion”, by requiring healthcare plans associated with religious healthcare organization to provide birth control for women. I won’t even go into the argument of how ridiculous it is for Catholics to denounce birth control, while they still have an international uproar raging over a generation of priests molesting boys, and the upper echelon of the church attempting to cover it up (without punishing the priests).
Social conservatives are against abortion, they’ve made that abundantly clear. So in an attempt to avoid unwarranted pregnancies and the associated abortions, birth control pills were created. Yay!! But wait, social conservatives are also against birth control. Hmm…that doesn’t seem to add up. How do we stop from having unwanted pregnancies if we don’t use birth control (the Catholic Church is also anti-condom)? Oh, right, abstinence is the answer; because that is a realistic approach to the worldwide problem of HIV and AIDS, as well and overpopulation and unwanted pregnancies worldwide (ironically, abortion numbers would actually decline if birth control was cheaper or more widely available). Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The moral majority conservatives (and Catholics) can have all the kids they want, and reject any message about birth control and abortion (even while pushing abortion numbers up), but they should not have the right to deny employees full access to heath care. If an employee of one of these institutions is a Catholic or a social conservative, they can choose not to purchase or use birth control; but other employees who are not of that faith or ideology should have the choice to receive a full range of healthcare options when it comes to birth control.
In addition, to call this a “war on religion” is absurd. The president did not make this choice as an affront to the Catholic Church or any religious institution in general, his purpose was to expand the healthcare options provided to literally tens of millions of women across the country. Of course it was inevitable that this was to become a political issue, but I applaud the president for doing this in the face of blustery politicians who politicize everything the president does, regardless of who and how many it helps. Obviously the cleavage between Republicans and Democrats is so large that anything the president does is wrong (to be fair, it was the same under President Bush, but almost everything he did WAS wrong...see).
If our nation is ever going to be back on the right track, we’re going to have to quit looking at all of these issue through such an ideological (or religious) spectrum, and instead start to think (like the president has done in the circumstance) about the broad impact it will have on the citizens in this country. Good work President Obama (and I’m honestly not trying to put my finger in the eye of religion) for standing up for the interests of the people, instead of for political interests.

Our Word is Our Weapon

A book suggestion. If you've never heard of the Zapatista Movement, or never heard of Subcomandate Marcos, who is the unofficial herald of the Zapatista Movement, take a few hours and pore over Our Word is Our Weapon, a selection of writings from the charismatic and enigmatic figure in the fight for indigenous rights in Mexico.
Subcomandate Marcos has become a wildly popular figurehead for the indigenous peoples of rural Mexico, whose message has resounded broadly throughout the world with all peoples that feel they are being exploited and unheard by their governments. The sentiments of the Zapatista are not that dissimilar from the movements of the "Arab Spring" or Occupy Wall Street, or even the Tea Party. The message is apolitical, but it's implications could and should be at least a wakeup call for corrupt politicans around the world, if not a call to movement for the rest of us.
While the tactics of the Zapatista have been called into question by authorities as disruptive and violent, the response is that they're simply doing whatever they must to gain the right to be heard. As with Marx's assertion that revolution, violent if necessary, will be required to bring about change because those in power will be unwilling to give it up without a fight. We in this country have taken to sitting back as armchair politicans, while our elected officials undermine our economy, our security and our very freedoms, while all we do is complain. The Zapatista have chosen to stop complaining about why their situation is the way it is and change it. And because the government was so used to dismissing its citizens, especially its indigenous citizens, it patronizingly dismissed the indigenous people of Mexico to its detriment.
We as a world need to heed the signs of the times. Hopefully the governments of the first world can and will improve, because if they don't, not only are they going to come undone themselves, but they're going to drive down the country's that they represent as a whole. We'll see chaos as the so-called military and economic superpowers are swallowed in a sea of worldwide economic collapse and general discontent. The military will mean nothing, because their no longer will be a specific "enemy" to target our weapons at, because WE will have become the rogue, the enemy, the failed state.
Our leaders need to head the warning signs, or we need to head them for them and toss them out, otherwise we're going to be looking at a world where economies, militaries, corporations and governments don't matter; it will be a Hobbesian struggle of every man [person] for themselves. Seems dark, and not plausible in the near future. But just how much can the rest of the world take; and just how much can we as citizens under these quasi-fascist, plutocratic, oligarchic, society stand, until we've reached our breaking point?
"I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones." ~ Albert Einstein