Tonight ought to be interesting

[eumaas]

I recently had a discussion with a friend about how neither candidate will make the necessary changes, but the 'economic crisis' may be the catalyst we need.

A total political/economic collapse would be better for this country's health than a hundred years of Democrats.

[dpwolf]

I feel like an hour spent sitting in zazen or spent conversing with someone about anarchy has a greater positive impact than the few minutes spent voting in a national election, just by ripple effects alone. Voting is choosing between two odious parties as to which gets to fuck me over--status quo remains the same, the machine keeps running, and no minds have been changed. Making a cup of green tea for an intelligent person and discussing what matters to me could, on the other hand, change a whole life and reorient how that person relates to the world. Sitting zazen does the same but for me--makes me a better, more able person.

I forgot how young you were, again.

By the way - how did you guys become unknown immortals again?
I remember being in General Walker's Army. I once was immortal.

[eumaas]

I forgot how young you were, again.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Flex]

I feel like an hour spent sitting in zazen or spent conversing with someone about anarchy has a greater positive impact than the few minutes spent voting in a national election, just by ripple effects alone. Voting is choosing between two odious parties as to which gets to fuck me over--status quo remains the same, the machine keeps running, and no minds have been changed. Making a cup of green tea for an intelligent person and discussing what matters to me could, on the other hand, change a whole life and reorient how that person relates to the world. Sitting zazen does the same but for me--makes me a better, more able person.

I can't speak to the presidential election but the guy I work for sponsored (and passed) a bill which provides 50,000 Colorado children with health insurance who were previously uninsured. He also increased road safety in one of the most treacherous highways in the state by developing a truck chainup law that he created support from all concerned groups on (he actually got to go to Washington to give a presentation to congress on it about how to develop a broad based support coalition for bills), and defeated toll road bills which would have had a tangible and appreciable negative impact on his area's way of life. But yeah, all candidates are scumbags and voting won't make a difference in the lives of anyone. I'm sure the 50,000 children in Colorado who can now go to the doctor would agree with that assessment.

faux addendum: I get your point and I've oscillated with agreeing with you on it and taking a more Hookwormian position on the matter. I get (and agree) that a lot of the problems we face and a lot of, even what my candidate has done, are fixes to a a system that creates these problems in the first place. We're providing bandages to a wound, not cleaning and healing the wound itself. But... when I think that due to my participation I can help have a real tangible impact on the lives of others, it's hard to check out on moral grounds. I guess I'm at the point in the pendulum swing where I think good work can be done both within and apart from the system. Bandage fixes within, work to change the underlying structure from without. Maybe the former is a pipe dream, but I feel like I'm having a much more meaningful impact on the lives of people than when I just go on about structural problems our country faces with folks.

[eumaas]

I can't speak to the presidential election but the guy I work for sponsored (and passed) a bill which provides 50,000 Colorado children with health insurance who were previously uninsured. He also increased road safety in one of the most treacherous highways in the state by developing a truck chainup law that he created support from all concerned groups on (he actually got to go to Washington to give a presentation to congress on it about how to develop a broad based support coalition for bills), and defeated toll road bills which would have had a tangible and appreciable negative impact on his area's way of life. But yeah, all candidates are scumbags and voting won't make a difference in the lives of anyone. I'm sure the 50,000 children in Colorado who can now go to the doctor would agree with that assessment.

Was this the consequence of a national election? I'm much more apt to participate in state and local, except that my district is overwhelmingly black and Democratic and so will go that way anyway. As I'm given to understand, whether I vote with or against the majority here, it doesn't really matter. Where there is a space to make a difference, I follow Bookchin's libertarian municipalism. In this environment, however, I think it's much more helpful to engage in practical anarchism--I do a lot with mutual aid, helping out people whenever they ask for it, lending without interest, that sort of thing. I've also spent a lot of time thinking up ways of promoting local agriculture and other local initiatives. I haven't gotten started on them mainly due to personal/economic issues (all of my paycheck goes to bills and so I have only my roommate's rent to survive on) but it's not like I don't give a damn. One of my shorter term plans, since the house is highly unlikely to sell, is to convert my home (I'm paying all the mortgage anyway, so what the fuck) into an open house like Crass's Dial House. Community centers have been decimated here so I feel like I should provide some kind of positive spot for people. I live in a high crime zone (my roommate's car insurance zoomed the fuck up when she changed her address), by the way, so I'm not exactly removed from the effects of injustice. There are gunshots here all the fucking time. I see aimless kids with nothing to do and no money. The statist, paternalistic solutions of the Dems might work for a generation or two, but they have no lasting efficacy here. I'd rather look to something outside of that.

National politics is entirely bound up in and controlled by impenetrable elites. You can sneer all you like, but I think that working on bettering myself as a human being and working with others on a local, person-to-person level is more worthwhile than being involved in electoral politics. I'm interested in non-state solutions, doing what the Preamble to the IWW Constitution calls "forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old"--you cannot get to anarchy by means of the state. I could choose to segregate my beliefs from my actions, but I choose not to do that. My whole reason for increasing my practice of meditation, and for treating the epilepsy, is to better myself. The better I am, the better I am to help others. I'm also getting out of my isolation by being out and about with people, discussing ideas, changing minds. If you can explain to me how voting Democrat or voting Republican leads to no more Democrats, no more Republicans, then I am all ears. As far as I can tell, though, participation in the system only continues it.

faux addendum: I get your point and I've oscillated with agreeing with you on it and taking a more Hookwormian position on the matter. I get (and agree) that a lot of the problems we face and a lot of, even what my candidate has done, are fixes to a a system that creates these problems in the first place. We're providing bandages to a wound, not cleaning and healing the wound itself. But... when I think that due to my participation I can help have a real tangible impact on the lives of others, it's hard to check out on moral grounds. I guess I'm at the point in the pendulum swing where I think good work can be done both within and apart from the system. Bandage fixes within, work to change the underlying structure from without. Maybe the former is a pipe dream, but I feel like I'm having a much more meaningful impact on the lives of people than when I just want on about structural problems our country faces.

Like I've said before, whatever I vote has no importance just on the demographics of my area. I should also point out that I think participation in this corrupt edifice is a humiliating and demoralizing effort. Why anyone would want to go through that is a mystery to me. Better to be positive and outside than negative and inside.

And whatever your friend/boss may be able to do, he will always be limited by the elites, and the longer he stays in, the more it will wear him down. Guaranteed. There are no clean politicians because the system by necessity dirties them.

[Dr. Medulla]

What describes reminds me of something Robert Kennedy once said. He was responding to statements made by other politicians or economists about how the growing GDP would be good for the poor in the long run (or something similar to that). RFK responded that people, especially the poor, don't live in the long run, and that cheery forecasts don't put food in the bellies of starving kids. So, yeah, in the abstract, we can all agree that the current system in the US and Canada is rigged against the poor. But if a person working within a rotten system can ease the suffering of others, isn't that a good thing and deserving of support over a guy who would exacerbate that suffering? It's a tough call, no doubt, between feeding the beast to make some lives less awful and focusing on the larger picture. I honestly can't begrudge either position if one's motive is honourable.

edit: My response was to Flex's post, in case there's any confusion.

[Mimi]

Paraphrasing snippets of a conversation I had this morning:

Woman: I'm just glad she had a chance to speak and show everyone how intelligent she is instead of having all those other people trap her and make her look stupid. (Referring to her recent interviews)

Me: Well, I don't think they set out to make her look her stupid, she did that on her own by not answering questions.

--------

Woman: I think all these women are jealous of her good looks and intelligence.

Me: (A very long pause wondering if I should let loose my laughter, get offended, or just end the conversation there. I chose the latter but...)

Woman: I'm not talking about you, of course, I'm talking about that Katie Couric.

Me: I think Katie is ten times better looking than Palin. (I hated to go there but I just wanted the conversation to end at that point)

So, there you have it. Women are jealous of Sarah Palin's good looks and superior intellect and that is why she looks bad during interviews.

[eumaas]

What describes reminds me of something Robert Kennedy once said. He was responding to statements made by other politicians or economists about how the growing GDP would be good for the poor in the long run (or something similar to that). RFK responded that people, especially the poor, don't live in the long run, and that cheery forecasts don't put food in the bellies of starving kids. So, yeah, in the abstract, we can all agree that the current system in the US and Canada is rigged against the poor. But if a person working within a rotten system can ease the suffering of others, isn't that a good thing and deserving of support over a guy who would exacerbate that suffering? It's a tough call, no doubt, between feeding the beast to make some lives less awful and focusing on the larger picture. I honestly can't begrudge either position if one's motive is honourable.

I don't see that the policies of the Democratic Party, especially when placed in the context of a system utterly controlled by elites, will actually achieve that. Like I said earlier, it's more a cultural choice than a choice with concrete political implications. For one thing there has to be a large political shift in minds of the people of this country in order to even facilitate a leftward swing of the Dems. The Dems right now play to the right to pick up the center. Again, voting for them when they do this only legitimizes this strategy.

[Wolter]

To derail this far more interesting topic back to the original post (I'm meeting you linear, boring people halfway, dammit!) here is a handy chart:

[Flex]

You can sneer all you like

You know, the rest of all this is probably worth responding to in some way, but what's the point? I just want to say I hardly think I'm the only one guilty of doing the sneering here (and the only line that struck me as possibly sneering is the comment at the end of the first paragraph about 50,000 kids having health insurance, which was maybe over the top but I still think a generally valid point at least in terms of why I'm compelled to do what I do), and while I tried to go out of my way to make sure you knew I respect your positions - and am a sometimes traveler - your dismissal of my ability to make moral and rational decisions leaves me rather cold. Frankly, that you're of the belief that I'm simply choosing a path that is leaving me "humiliated and demoralized" suggests you have a lot less respect for me as a rational and ethical person, who chooses to make decisions that I believe will better myself, than I had previously thought. You're not the only one who think their actions make them a better person.

Why bother continuing this discussion? On this issue, at least, it seems you don't value or respect my position.

[dpwolf]

I forgot how young you were, again.

What does that have to do with anything?

It doesn't, other than your age.

National politics is entirely bound up in and controlled by impenetrable elites.

perhaps its the alien DNA?

You can sneer all you like, but I think that working on bettering myself as a human being and working with others on a local, person-to-person level is more worthwhile than being involved in electoral politics. I'm interested in non-state solutions, doing what the Preamble to the IWW Constitution calls "forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old"--you cannot get to anarchy by means of the state. I could choose to segregate my beliefs from my actions, but I choose not to do that. My whole reason for increasing my practice of meditation, and for treating the epilepsy, is to better myself. The better I am, the better I am to help others. I'm also getting out of my isolation by being out and about with people, discussing ideas, changing minds. If you can explain to me how voting Democrat or voting Republican leads to no more Democrats, no more Republicans, then I am all ears. As far as I can tell, though, participation in the system only continues it.

Wise and admirable. Truly. But I'm not sure one can segregate beliefs from actions even if for some reason one wanted to, just as I don't think not voting equates to your not participating in the system. Forget the parties; would you rather have McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden in the executive? Its as simple as that. Not voting doesn't help you meditate, be more true to yourself, further your cause, help eliminate the two party system, help others or even influence others, except perhaps through charisma not to vote.

[Dr. Medulla]

What describes reminds me of something Robert Kennedy once said. He was responding to statements made by other politicians or economists about how the growing GDP would be good for the poor in the long run (or something similar to that). RFK responded that people, especially the poor, don't live in the long run, and that cheery forecasts don't put food in the bellies of starving kids. So, yeah, in the abstract, we can all agree that the current system in the US and Canada is rigged against the poor. But if a person working within a rotten system can ease the suffering of others, isn't that a good thing and deserving of support over a guy who would exacerbate that suffering? It's a tough call, no doubt, between feeding the beast to make some lives less awful and focusing on the larger picture. I honestly can't begrudge either position if one's motive is honourable.

I don't see that the policies of the Democratic Party, especially when placed in the context of a system utterly controlled by elites, will actually achieve that. Like I said earlier, it's more a cultural choice than a choice with concrete political implications. For one thing there has to be a large political shift in minds of the people of this country in order to even facilitate a leftward swing of the Dems. The Dems right now play to the right to pick up the center. Again, voting for them when they do this only legitimizes this strategy.

What I said shouldn't have been interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the Democratic Party. Indeed, like Flex was arguing, it's the lower levels where there's a greater chance of directly helping those in need, at the municipal and, to a degree, the state/provincial levels. The point is that if there's someone running who has a track record of contributing meaningfully in the community, be it in a private or public capacity, perhaps that possibility of doing further good is greater than hostility to the state. Perhaps, anyway.

Also, that Obama is running to the centre is not necessarily indicative of how he'd govern. Electoral politics is different than governing politics. The rule of thumb (ignored by Karl Rove) is that you run at your base in the primaries then run to the centre in the election. Clinton and Bush Sr. governed more to the centre (relative to their base), but Reagan and Bush II went back to the base when governing. So disillusionment with how Obama is running isn't necessarily predictive.

[eumaas]

You can sneer all you like

You know, the rest of all this is probably worth responding to in some way, but what's the point? I just want to say I hardly think I'm the only one guilty of doing the sneering here (and the only line that struck me as possibly sneering is the comment at the end of the first paragraph about 50,000 kids having health insurance, which was maybe over the top but I still think a generally valid point at least in terms of why I'm compelled to do what I do), and while I tried to go out of my way to make sure you knew I respect your positions - and am a sometimes traveler - your dismissal of my ability to make moral and rational decisions leaves me rather cold. Frankly, that you're of the belief that I'm simply choosing a path that is leaving me "humiliated and demoralized" suggests you have a lot less respect for me as a rational and ethical person, who chooses to make decisions that I believe will better myself, than I had previously thought. You're not the only one who think their actions make them a better person.

Why bother continuing this discussion? On this issue, at least, it seems you don't value or respect my position.

I think we've just misunderstood each other in tone and emphasis. I took your 50,000 kids as a moral criticism of me, and I think you took the humiliation and demoralization thing as a moral criticism of you whereas we were each looking in the mirror rather than pointing a telescope at the other. I respect you as a rational and ethical person. I have no problems with people voting if it is consonant with their political position, which yours seems to be. What I criticize and what keeps me from voting is a dissonance between belief and action. I'm not suggesting you are dissonant in this way, either. But if I were to vote in a national election, it would be me taking an action that runs contrary to my principles. That's why I frame it as a moral question. I am not here to preach to you or anyone what you should or should not do, but to explain why I make the choices I make, and in so doing perhaps not change the views of others so much as make those views clearer by providing a contrast. That's all. You know I'm your friend. I was very taken aback by your tone towards me in that 50,000 kids bit, and maybe that's because you perceive my statements as an attack on your friend/boss as a person. It's not at all. If were president, I would be a tyrant. Why I believe the way I do is because the system can make good people into tyrants. I don't doubt that you and your friend are motivated by altruism and the service motive. I don't think even the corrupt politicians necessarily believe they're doing evil. The point in illustrating my beliefs and actions is to suggest that a flawed reward/punishment system (as I identify representative democracy in this nation) may lead to disfigured behavior.

[Flex]

Okay, we cool. Nothing to see here folks.

Although there is something to see here:

[Wolter]

Although there is something to see here:

Rubbernecked.