If Music Could Talk

IkarisOne wrote:In other words, keep the show on the road. Pass one Treasury-looting bonanza after one Orwellian nightmare but keep everyone fighting over gay marriage and Paula Deen. Honey, we lost the house and we can't pay for Junior's cancer treatments and the IRS is garnishing my wages. But look at those rednecks- ha ha, aren't they stupid? Gosh, I feel better already!

I think part of the gay marriage thing has to do with part of this country being treated as subhuman and denied access to the same rights as everyone else, meager as those rights may be at this point. I would argue there's more at stake in these fights than simply "laughing at rednecks."

I think you're right that the Democratic Party uses these issues to package very unpalatable policies to people who would otherwise recoil at them, but that doesn't mean these aren't important issues. Gay rights, minority franchise and reproductive rights are all important battles being fought and things that are actually worth fighting for, even if Obama happens to support them.

I know a lot of women who are absolutely disgusted with the Democratic Party for all the reasons you state, but are suspicious of the alternatives because they were about a lack of commitment to women's health issues. Which, for many women (including immediate and extended members of my family), can be a matter of life and death. Frankly, I think they have reason to be suspicious. And it pains me that this is the case.

Look, none of the last two days has suddenly put me in the Vote Blue! camp and I'm not arguing people should just activate on one or two issues. But the first step to coalition building is, you know, trying to accommodate the interests of people you want in your coalition. Part of that means taking seriously the issues a group other than your own might be facing. Simply dismissing people's investment in these issues as the unhappy result of some combination of being taken in by magician's tricks and soft bigotry against rednecks probably isn't going to do a lot in creating that Left/Libertarian/etc. alliance you've been talking about.

Just my two cents.

Addendum: I note your response to Rattie, where you clarify some of your comments on gay marriage. So some of this response is probably outdated. I'll let it stand since I have to run for a bit, but just know that this was written before the latest set of responses. Cheers!

Flex wrote:

IkarisOne wrote:In other words, keep the show on the road. Pass one Treasury-looting bonanza after one Orwellian nightmare but keep everyone fighting over gay marriage and Paula Deen. Honey, we lost the house and we can't pay for Junior's cancer treatments and the IRS is garnishing my wages. But look at those rednecks- ha ha, aren't they stupid? Gosh, I feel better already!

I think part of the gay marriage thing has to do with part of this country being treated as subhuman and denied access to the same rights as everyone else, meager as those rights may be at this point. I would argue there's more at stake in these fights than simply "laughing at rednecks."

I think you're right that the Democratic Party uses these issues to package very unpalatable policies to people who would otherwise recoil at them, but that doesn't mean these aren't important issues. Gay rights, minority franchise and reproductive rights are all important battles being fought and things that are actually worth fighting for, even if Obama happens to support them.

I know a lot of women who are absolutely disgusted with the Democratic Party for all the reasons you state, but are suspicious of the alternatives because they were about a lack of commitment to women's health issues. Which, for many women (including immediate and extended members of my family), can be a matter of life and death. Frankly, I think they have reason to be suspicious. And it pains me that this is the case.

Look, none of the last two days has suddenly put me in the Vote Blue! camp and I'm not arguing people should just activate on one or two issues. But the first step to coalition building is, you know, trying to accommodate the interests of people you want in your coalition. Part of that means taking seriously the issues a group other than your own might be facing. Simply dismissing people's investment in these issues as the unhappy result of some combination of being taken in by magician's tricks and soft bigotry against rednecks probably isn't going to do a lot in creating that Left/Libertarian/etc. alliance you've been talking about.

Just my two cents.

Addendum: I note your response to Rattie, where you clarify some of your comments on gay marriage. So some of this response is probably outdated. I'll let it stand since I have to run for a bit, but just know that this was written before the latest set of responses. Cheers!

Well, let me just say this- I don't think most so-called "progressives"- whom I call "hyper-privileged progressives" care about working class or lower middle class or most nonwhite people anymore. I think the gay thing is in reality a way to crowd out minority issues completely. Look at how this DOMA thing follows on the heels of the VRA gutting. Need I say more?

Look at Detroit and Philly, for starters. These cities are getting murdered and Obama is out there talking about fucking carbon credits.

I think most activist Democrats now come from high-income, upper-educated families and are in every single possible way identical to your typical East Coast liberal Republican of the 50s and 60s. I think we could see the same thing happen in states with high Hispanic populations what happened in NY- Hispanics will realize that Democrats really don't care about them and they'll form their own party like conservative Catholics did with the Conservative Party. Black voters may stay home unless there's a black candidate. Either way I think the 2014 elections are going to be 2010 redux, no matter how hard the media try to wish it otherwise. Maybe worse. More insane maniacs in Congress.

I'll ask again: What does a Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of a California ballot initiative and a flagrantly unconstitutional law that was begging to get struck down the very second it got in front of the Court have anything to do with that? They don't even have anything to do with yesterday's VRA ruling because the laws in question were so poorly written there wasn't enough perversion of the legalese to wring out of them to let stand.

It has NOTHING to do with it. It has nothing to do with whatever con is being packaged up in it. FFS...that whole vat of swill is a separate thread.

I do not understand why actual, factual marriage equality--which matters the WHOLE world to the people who want to get married but have been denied it for so long--needs a stern lecture about how irrelevant this is in the grand scheme and what sheeple people are for giving a crap about it. If this was you, or your family...would you give a rat's ass today about the world burning or who is creating a talking points con on the day you first got granted the right to become a family? Dear God, I hope not. That would be depressing beyond belief. So what if that's a minority of the population and hangers-on are wont to waste time with it. To the people it directly affects, THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT IN THE WORLD THAN FAMILY. Full-stop. Take the vows, kiss the ___, get drunk off your ass, be with friends and family, fuck like jackrabbits, think about the possibilities for the rest of your lives. Really...are any of the people directly affected by the decision gonna let Obama ruin their day?

I don't give a rat's ass what Democratic strategists have to say about it. The day it became legal in Massachusetts and all those couples flocked to Boston Common to get hitched was a mind-blowing event. I got chills watching it on the news. Especially the old couples who'd been waiting decades. California is getting that now. Good for them. Life is hard, and nobody spends their own wedding day giving one flying fuck about the government. As it should be.

I don't have anything to add via a via issues not being mutually exclusive. As Flex said, a lot of us who work in activism (whether as volunteers or professionals) rely a lot on coalition partnerships. There really is no way to be single-minded, one-issue focused in this day and age.

I also think that a lot of people who live in, for lack of a better term, blue states take for granted the things they don't have to deal with. In the last legislative session alone, the Missouri legislature passed bills so extreme and draconian that I am actually starting to get nervous. And there is a veto-proof Republican supermajority. So while I would love to be in a position to vote for a third party candidate, I really don't have a choice.

JennyB wrote: So while I would love to be in a position to vote for a third party candidate, I really don't have a choice.

I agree with Jenny on this. I voted for Nader in the 2000 general election, and I think he got like 6% of the vote. Look what happened in Florida that election. (and no, I don't blame Gore too much for "caving" to the US Supreme Court - the game was already called).

EDIT: just looked it up - Nader got 2.74% of the popular vote. What the hell was I thinking in '00?

It's a nasty and small person who would piss on an occasion where a historically marginalized group of people are able to better their exercise their hearts without legal preventions. If a person is a bigot, religious or secular, sure, I'd understand that, but otherwise, Christ, what kind of person turns a tangible, albeit incomplete victory for civil liberties into something to grouse about?

Dr. Medulla wrote:It's a nasty and small person who would piss on an occasion where a historically marginalized group of people are able to better their exercise their hearts without legal preventions. If a person is a bigot, religious or secular, sure, I'd understand that, but otherwise, Christ, what kind of person turns a tangible, albeit incomplete victory for civil liberties into something to grouse about?

Perfect.

I don't know who the Tapeworm is referring to, but I'm grousing about Obama and his media lackies using this issue to ignore the problems that are breaking the rest of the country's back. This issue could have and should have been resolved a long time ago but is being dragged out so progressives no longer have to think about what's happening outside their hyper-privileged bubbles.

I thought I made that clear, but the goalpost must forever be moved when you are not inside the Clique. Forever and ever, amen.

Which...has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling yesterday.


Meanwhile, to the people this directly affects:

Collateral damage!: http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/20 ... portation/

And, "On your marks, get set...": http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... es?ref=fpb, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-g ... 3805.story, http://martinez.patch.com/groups/politi ... y-marriage

It boils down to this: I worry about Americans- including gay Americans- having decent jobs, medical insurance, Social Security, privacy and safe communities. All the things Barack W. Nixon is tossing in the woodchipper.

I guess it's just a question of priorities.

IkarisOne wrote:It boils down to this: I worry about Americans- including gay Americans- having decent jobs, medical insurance, Social Security, privacy and safe communities. All the things Barack W. Nixon is tossing in the woodchipper.

I guess it's just a question of priorities.

What are you even talking about? Who here has said these aren't priority issues? Taking five seconds to say that it's nice that DOMA has been (mostly) repealed doesn't mean someone doesn't care or prioritize this other stuff.

Flex wrote:

IkarisOne wrote:It boils down to this: I worry about Americans- including gay Americans- having decent jobs, medical insurance, Social Security, privacy and safe communities. All the things Barack W. Nixon is tossing in the woodchipper.

I guess it's just a question of priorities.

What are you even talking about? Who here has said these aren't priority issues? Taking five seconds to say that it's nice that DOMA has been (mostly) repealed doesn't mean someone doesn't care or prioritize this other stuff.

What is wrong with you? Do you even read what I write anymore or do you just go into automatic attack mode to ingratiate yourself with Tapeworm? I quite clearly said I was talking about the Democrats, the so-called progressives, and the neutered media poodles.

IkarisOne wrote:It boils down to this: I worry about Americans- including gay Americans- having decent jobs, medical insurance, Social Security, privacy and safe communities. All the things Barack W. Nixon is tossing in the woodchipper.

I guess it's just a question of priorities.

Priorities or single-tasking?

Marriage benefits have a whole fucking lot to do with financial security in terms of spousal medical insurance, inheritances, child support, child custody, immigration status. And on and on and on. There are very good reasons why Americans put up with the bureaucracy related to it. Crowing too much about it or buying the packaging may be a ruse to a lot of people who have no personal investment whatsoever in it...but for gay couples and their friends/family this is life itself.


I think it's a useless exercise to try to rank the issues single-file what needs to happen first for some statistical mean of Americans. It's all intertwined, the rights all have dependencies intentional and unintentional on each other, and the effects are all asymmetrical to different constituencies. This isn't neat and tidy. Try telling the people for whom this issue means life itself that that their specific problem is insignificant to the aggregate of the nation's problems. That's self-defeating. There's always going to be something bigger you can't solve. Always. And everyone is going to have different battles they want to pick first. Are you suggesting we need to go full-on Clashy and designate an elite all-knowing authority to rank in order what priorities we need to care about? Aren't we now living the consequences of entrusting elites to decide what priorities are best for us? Aren't we now into "the definition of insanity. . ." territory on how much that formula can get tweaked to any improvement?


Ain't nothing to downplay about asymmetrical civil rights victories when it means the whole fucking world to a significant oppressed constituency. There's no way to rank or prioritize those kinds of victories. If anything we need more quantity than priority for cultivating inertia-of-motion. There isn't enough unity in the American underclass to get everyone on the same exact page about X many key issues one group or person thinks is highest priority. It's not a monoculture. There is, however, a snowball effect when specific constituencies get all fired up about something extremely important to them--like this--and it gets other constituencies fired up about theirs. I'll happily embrace an asymmetrical mess to get more from whence that came. It's a whole lot more effective than triangulation.

To summarize for any latecomers:
1. Group of people in a room discuss an event, deem it a fairly positive development, but by no means a slam dunk.
2. Angry person comes into the room and says event is all a smokescreen for a sinister conspiracy.
3. Group challenges basis of angry person's assertion.
4. Angry person says event is good but is actually bad because it makes people not care about anything else.
5. Group disputes the logic that people can only care about one and only one issue.
6. Angry person says, "I wasn't talking about any of you!" and calls the group stupid for even thinking that.

Rat Patrol wrote:

IkarisOne wrote:It boils down to this: I worry about Americans- including gay Americans- having decent jobs, medical insurance, Social Security, privacy and safe communities. All the things Barack W. Nixon is tossing in the woodchipper.

I guess it's just a question of priorities.

Priorities or single-tasking?

Marriage benefits have a whole fucking lot to do with financial security in terms of spousal medical insurance, inheritances, child support, child custody, immigration status. And on and on and on. There are very good reasons why Americans put up with the bureaucracy related to it. Crowing too much about it or buying the packaging may be a ruse to a lot of people who have no personal investment whatsoever in it...but for gay couples and their friends/family this is life itself.


I think it's a useless exercise to try to rank the issues single-file what needs to happen first for some statistical mean of Americans. It's all intertwined, the rights all have dependencies intentional and unintentional on each other, and the effects are all asymmetrical to different constituencies. This isn't neat and tidy. Try telling the people for whom this issue means life itself that that their specific problem is insignificant to the aggregate of the nation's problems. That's self-defeating. There's always going to be something bigger you can't solve. Always. And everyone is going to have different battles they want to pick first. Are you suggesting we need to go full-on Clashy and designate an elite all-knowing authority to rank in order what priorities we need to care about? Aren't we now living the consequences of entrusting elites to decide what priorities are best for us? Aren't we now into "the definition of insanity. . ." territory on how much that formula can get tweaked to any improvement?


Ain't nothing to downplay about asymmetrical civil rights victories when it means the whole fucking world to a significant oppressed constituency. There's no way to rank or prioritize those kinds of victories. If anything we need more quantity than priority for cultivating inertia-of-motion. There isn't enough unity in the American underclass to get everyone on the same exact page about X many key issues one group or person thinks is highest priority. It's not a monoculture. There is, however, a snowball effect when specific constituencies get all fired up about something extremely important to them--like this--and it gets other constituencies fired up about theirs. I'll happily embrace an asymmetrical mess to get more from whence that came. It's a whole lot more effective than triangulation.

I think there's a lot more going on than we know at the moment. We will know in 20 years. I've known gay people literally my entire life, particularly gay men. My mom was a professional night club singer who specialized in show tunes- need I say more? I always thought the appeal for men was not getting married. I've read a lot of older gay men say the very same thing.

What I'm worried about now is what's left of the New Deal being thrown in the chipper while everyone is dancing in the streets. I'm not a socialist, I believe in enlightened self-interest. And a lot of people are being pushed over the cliff and that puts pressure on everyone who isn't making high six figures.