Life is Change: Putting Regular Posts on Hiatus

Because of time management, personal matters, and the Lextopia proving the least lucrative of all my after-hours activities, I'm putting regular postings on hiatus for an indefinite amount of time. Consider all multi-part essays ended with no expectation to continue. If it's any consolation, my sources have provided notification that at least the Progressive Bar situation has a pretty good chance of improving for all, if all work in good faith. I would have loved to gone deeper into that issue, but life has just gotten in the way.

Considering lucrativeness enters the equation of this decision, I won't discourage anyone from contributing toward my Patreon or "sending me a coffee". If I get enough contributions coming in, I can make the time for the Lextopia. See the top of this entry for links to make such contributions.

I'll continue activities on social media. Posts may end up too long for social media, so I'll post them here instead. Maybe I'll even have a flash of inspiration to post. Who knows? Just because I don't post on a regular basis doesn't mean I won't post irregularly.

Now to work on some other projects that will hopefully lead to bigger and better things, maybe even more regular postings in the future. Thank you visiting and reading my ruminations on a regular basis. Until the next entry, enjoy other parts of the Internet.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States: Part 4 - Hypothetical Searching for Leverage Through Justice and Identity with Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Discounting Past Missteps of Inexperience

This is part 4 of I don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

If you want to catch up and not start in the middle, you can read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Then again, Lightfoot might go against the grain of her history. A viable profile of Lightfoot's public professional history comes from a combination of

• Lacking experience
• All of Lightfoot's public experience and power has come from political appointments and hired positions, not elected positions
• Being a person with minority/marginalized characteristics in a world of White Straight Male Supremacy

Lightfoot's lack of experience doesn't need much attention. Her time on organizations focused on overseeing the Chicago police force come off as more strategic, tactical, and "by the book" for an appointed position rather than lack of experience. The time as part of these organizations need more attention.

Nonetheless, Lightfoot has two glaring illustrations from further back that show lack of experience need a little attention. They are:

• Lightfoot disclosing an incorrect interpretation of facts based on directions/information from her superiors during an extradition hearing of a Norwegian national, which expedited a faster and possibly incorrect resolution. Parts of this article provide a little more context into the inexperience aspect of this matter.
  
• While working as head of the Chicago Office of of Emergency Management and Communication (911), multiple calls about a fire that led to the death of children were ignored or hung up on by staff. Lightfoot's department came under investigation for the staff's gross negligence. Records went missing and went into shredders. Apparently too much delegation, not enough communication, and not enough direct involvement by Lightfoot caused record keeping issues that made an investigation difficult.

Both of these missteps occurred early in Lightfoot's career. The extradition case proves more understandable. Lightfoot hadn't worked these types of cases much before, and she had worked off the direction and information of her superiors.

The Emergency Management and Communication matter is less forgivable since Lightfoot was the superiod. Also, after coming from a prosecutory career track, Lightfoot should have familiarity with the importance of keeping records for risk management in regard to liability and negligence. Considering all that, however, this appointment comes early during her public service management career track. This department, in particular, comes off as being in shambles even before Lightfoot took lead. Despite the egregiousness of this situation, it creates an impression of a disorganized department led by an inexperienced manager who should have known better but still made mistakes.

Neither of these cases of inexperience have much bearing on the current tensions if any of the sides appeal to Lightfoot. Mayor Lightfoot has reached one of the few top positions in Chicago, so she has only her cognizance to fall back on. The situation in Boystown has more to do with diplomacy but possibly a little coercion or influence peddling, though some amount of investigation, information gathering, and/or ad hoc legislation might be required.

The cases of past inexperience didn't rely so much on Lightfoot's personal execution of values focused on fairness and respect (though having a better grip on such values during those two moments of inexperience could have aided her in doing better jobs) but rather on

• Meeting job descriptions
• Following the judgment of superiors
• Using experience accumulated up to those points

Mayor Lightfoot has a lot more slack to use personal judgment, personal value, and personal discretion while also trying to stay on the good side of voters. In many ways, being mayor provides Lightfoot with more freedom to truly exert some muscle to actualize a positive end result rather than, as in the past, to mitigate harm reduction in a situation.

On the flipside, Lightfoot did a horrible job covering up her screw ups. These instances would have proven impossible to discover at the time if Lightfoot had good cover up skills. If someone in public office wants to cover up misdeeds, I want them bad at doing it.

Inexperienced now covered, onto how being in an appointed position could have given Lightfoot difficulty for showing her convictions.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States: Part 3 - Projections of Mayor Lightfoot's Response to Intersectional Identity Appeals Based on Her Campaign Image and Priorities

This is part 3 of how don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

If you want to catch up and not start in the middle, you can read Part 1 first and also Part 2.

In addition to taking into account the influence of the Black LGBTQ+ voting bloc on Mayor Lightfoot, an appeal to the Mayor in this case might have an additional factor that could benefit the Black LGBTQ+ community. Mayor Lightfoot is the first openly gay and first female black mayor of Chicago. Mayor Lightfoot has something of a personal stake in this conflict and getting it resolved in a manner that benefits both her intersectional identity and advancing society seeing, hearing, and respecting marginalized identities could attract her. Lightfoot's identification with the cause and embodiment with the cause on a macro level could push her to take action.

However, two factors work against having faith that Mayor Lightfoot would take up this cause: her public history and she is the mayor to the whole city, not just one voting bloc or community. Lightfoot ran for mayor on a platform of police reform. A fair amount of the public instantly had thoughts about police murdering black people with minimal, if any, cause, after which the perpetrators often received minimal, if any, repercussions. While serving as something of a watchdog over the police in her pre-Mayoral career, though, Lightfoot hadn't shown the most empathy or urgency to families and victims, giving preference to order and prudence:

• ”Behind Lori Lightfoot’s image as police reformer, her past reveals complicated picture” - Chicago Tribune
  
  
• ”Chicago Police Board Fails Rekia Boyd’s Family Again” - Black Youth Project 100
  
  
• ”Notes from Chicago Police Accountability Task Force Community Forum #4” - Smart Chicago @ Medium
  
  
• ”After saying #ByeAnita, Chicago's young black organizers continue calls for justice” - Chicago Reader
  
  
• ”Don’t Get Too Excited About Chicago’s New Black Lesbian Mayor” - Outr
  
  
• ”Rekia Boyd's Bloody Hair Shown to Police as Activists Take Over Meeting” - DNA Info Chicago
  
  
• ”Lori Lightfoot Is a Pragmatist. Chicago Needs a Revolution.” - Intelligencer
  
  
• ”Rekia Boyd Case Sparks Shouting, Pushing at Police Board Meeting” - DNA Info Chicago

Even now after Lightfoot vowed during her campaign to release information regarding the Laquan McDonald "cover up", Lightfoot refuses to release them even in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. Apparently a gag order prevents the release, the strongest among three legal reasons to prevent the release of information. As with past actions before becoming mayor, Lightfoot puts a lot of focus on order and prudence, not showing her hand in a litigious risk management manner. Opposite to Lightfoot's tact, this route could be simultaneously followed while showing heart, empathy, and a balance of psychological face, but Lightfoot doesn't.

Mayor Lightfoot answers to a different calling than emphasizing her own identifications and emphasizing her own personal/social justice. She comes from a marginalized background in which she learned to “not to use her race, gender, or economic status as an excuse for anything short of excellence.” This approach becomes a double-edged sword. It values truth and equal treatment while being a leader to everyone.

At the same time, however, this perspective can cause a blindness to identifying when discretion in unique situations can

• Increase equitable justice
• Smooth relations
• Build trust and good will
• Use/take advantage of learning moments

Maintaining order and emphasizing equal reward for equal effort, however, can often maintain the status quo and intensify tensions and bad faith between parties.

Mayor Lightfoot has also demonstrated in these kinds of issues an approach that Barack Obama used regarding these kinds of situations, as encapsulated by his quote: “I’m not the president of black people, I’m the president of everyone.” Lightfoot’s refrains to saying that she has to look at all the facts before making a comment without any words of support or consolation shows how careful she tries to not say anything she’ll regret or face attacks from any angle.

In regards to these two particular issues, the rap ban and a prejudiced store owner in Boystown, Mayor Lightfoot would likely not consider them high ranking on her list of priorities. Lightfoot has mentioned many times how she wants to prioritize developing run down parts of the city with little commercial or community activity. Taking into consideration the increased violence in the city since Memorial Day, Lightfoot likely sees crime as a problem to fix, too. Add to that Lightfoot’s trips to California, Washington DC, and New York City to try brainstorming ideas to fight crime and violence (and be on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert), these problems might not impress Lightfoot as important issues that will help bolster her approval among the voters.

Part 4 has been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

FLASHPOST: Abuse in Immigrant Detention Centers and What Department(s) and Agency(ies) Have Oversight Authority Over Them

[I've been having some issues with Executive Control lately, so I've procrastinated a bit on the "Redlining Political Communities" series. I've procrastinated on a lot of things. Don't know why. No matter. In lieu of another part in that series, today I release (a day early, I might add) a quick flashpost that wrote in a fit of emotion after hearing a good podcast about a disturbing situation.]

RIGGER WARNING ABOUT THE LINKED PODCAST EPISODE: podcast episode does contain explicit retellings of abusive situations, if not physical, then emotional.

Want to get angry? Here's an Embedded podcast episode about sexual abuse in immigration detention centers (the main interviewee is kinda problematic, but even then, the power differential definitely puts the guard in the fault). What's super disturbing:

• Temporary immigration centers are under purview of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  
  
• "Permanent" detention centers for at least kids are under Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which makes some sense but always surprises me
  
  
• Prisons for actual criminals have Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight

Regular prisons receive much more stringent oversight by DOJ than immigrant detention centers.

I'm generally a progressive that appreciates executive departments and agencies run by professionals. In this case, though, might we have too many departments or not enough departments providing oversight? I know DHS is something of an attempt to consolidate departments, which has had mixed results. Nonetheless, in regards to immigration, immigrants, and asylum seekers, no matter one's political alignment, some re-organization and mission statement reviews could prove beneficial to the United States immigration morass of a system.

Frankly, it has come time for a comprehensive review of Executive Departments and Agencies and their remits. Considering how much these departments and agencies have become abused over the last two and a half years, they need it. After looking into how Executive Departments and Agencies work, though, such a process looks difficult and requires, per usual and as it should be, political consensus among the branches of the government.

I guess that just leaves it in the hands of us, the voters, to vote for candidates in the offices of President, the House of Representative, the Senate, State Attorney Generals, State Governors, and State Congresspeople who will fight for a more just border and immigration system. Then we have to keep doing it, every two years. Are you up for it?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States - Part 2: Searching for Leverage, by the Numbers, Starting with Mayor Lightfoot (Voting Blocs Matter)

This is part 2 of how don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

If you want to catch up and not start in the middle, you can read Part 1 first. Part 3 has been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.


Clout and leverage, in the context of this situation, refers to direct, in the open, obvious characteristics like residents of a neighborhood that can vote for the local alderman (the current legal title in Chicago, even for women or other genders), having a business that likely contribute campaign funds to the alderman, or possibly advocating with their own alderman and/or mayor, indirectly or directly.

Advocating through the mayor probably provides the most direct access to "honest" clout in this situation. Every vote for the mayor helps Mayor Lori Lightfoot, whereas the alderman, Tom Tunney, alderman for the 44th ward 44th where these conflicts have occurred, doesn't depend on votes from residents of other wards.

Based on straight numbers, the mayor’s calculus for determining which votes matter might encourage the mayor to not take a conflict such as this one seriously. The total population of Chicago is estimated to be 2,716,450. A report in 2018 has estimated that the population that has claimed to be LGBT+ has come out to roughly 146,000. Not even taking into account the intersection of race and sexual identity, the claimed LGBT+ population is about 5% of the population of Chicago. Taking into account

• Margins of error
• People not open about being LGBT+
• Gender identities not taken into account in these surveys but who participate in these communities
• The intersection of race and sexual identity

I feel safe to say that the members of the aggressed upon group, Black LGBTQ+, probably still amount to somewhere between 3% to 4%. Either which way, when looked upon from a pure numbers perspective, this group doesn’t come off as a strong voting bloc.

The above analysis makes sense in a winner take all election system with few candidates. However, The Black LGBTQ+ voting bloc can gain more traction when taking into account a combination of the Chicago municipal electoral system and the size of the candidate pool. Chicago has two-step runoff elections if a single candidate doesn't get more than 50% of the vote during the first round of the election. If no candidate gets the majority vote, the candidates with the two highest whole percentage scores end up on the final ballot. The final ballot has likely never had more than two candidates, but in theory, it could happen.

In the last Chicago Municipal Elections, the first round ballot had 21 or 22 mayoral candidates. At the end of the first Election Night, front runners Lori Lightfoot got 17.54% of the vote and Toni Preckwinkle got 16.04%, granting them entry into the second round ballot. Bill Daley, the candidate that came in 3rd, got 14.78% of the vote. Making a non real-world assumption for illustrative purposes that Black LGBTQ+ Chicagoans didn't vote at all, if the estimated percentage of Black LGBTQ+ voters all voted for Daley (which I doubt they would), compared to the total population of Chicago without taking into account voter participation, Daley's percentage would have gotten up to 17.78%, taking first place knocking Preckwinkle out of the second-round race.

The numbers become even more interesting when taking into account that the first round of the election only had 35% voter participation. If the voter participation remained the same but the Black LGBTQ+ bloc was switched out with a completely different demographic, this community could swing the vote by approximately 8%. This calculated makes an assumption that a minimal amount of Black LGBTQ+ constituents voted in the actual election (these calculations are to illustrate a point, not make an argument about a voter blocs voter participation).

Adding in all the 3% African American LGBTQ+ participation to the 35% voter participation rather than switching them out with voters would increase participation to 38%, the African American LGBTQ+ community could still swing the vote by 7.89% if they voted as a single bloc in this situation. If this whole bloc had voted for the candidate in 5th place, Susana Mendoza, she would have come in second, either knocking out Preckwinkle OR taken part in the second round ballot as third candidate (again, a theoretical possibility that I don't have enough data to truly understand).

These calculations and argument don't aim to push for any particular candidate or make an argument about the participation of real people or real voting blocs in the election (since I don't know how the participation breaks down demographic wise). Rather, these premises aim to argue that votes matter, especially when consolidated into a voting bloc and when a lot of candidates run without political party monopolies. Black and brown people, Jewish people, LGBTQ+ people, working class people, women, and whatever category that goes unmentioned here are not monoliths. Nonetheless, when White Supremacy, implicit or explicit, erases and silences communities and groups because they express harmless but beautiful characteristics that Supremacists don't like, these communities sometimes need to come together as a voting bloc or group of voting blocs to fight as a group so that each individual can be heard and seen.

As to Lightfoot, advocating a cause to her with 3% to 8% of the voters makes for a good realpolitik defensive poltical position for her in a future "election brawl". The additional voter share would better bolster her chances of winning as any additional votes would. In addition, keeping those votes away from other candidates weakens the other candidates' positions for receiving a "referendum" and developing momentum to challenge Lightfoot as much. Mayor Lightfoot also wouldn't have to divide her attention as much during the campaign if she gains the appreciation and gratitude of a voting block while continuing to deliver to that voting bloc.

By the numbers, a voter share of 3% to 8% can still amount to a lot when the election field reaches a large enough size. The numbers provide a good argument for the Black LGBTQ+ voter bloc advocating their cause with Mayor Lightfoot.

But what about other, softer factors and characteristics could win or lose Mayor Lightfoot for this cause?

Part 3 and Part 4 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States - Part 1: Racism in Boystown & the Challenge of Affecting Popular Change and Redress

This is part 1 of how don't how long series of essays that I've titled Redlining Political Communities in Chicago and the United States. The series takes up the topic of two separate racist "encounters" that erupted around one weekend at the end of May 2019 between two business owners in Chicago's boystown and the black LGBTQ+ community of Chicago as a way to analyze how geography and segmenting of populations can influence politics in Chicago and allegorically to the United States.

Part 2 and Part 3 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

About 3 weeks ago, two racist conflicts arose that centered around the Boystown neighborhood in Chicago that the following three articles elaborate upon:

• ”Group Calls For Beatnix Boycott After Boystown Store Owner Called Cops On Customers Who Complained About Confederate Flag Vest” - Block Club Chicago
  
  
• ”Rap Ban May Be Lifted At Progress Bar, But Boystown Needs To Confront Its History Of Racism, Activists Say” - Block Club Chicago
  
  
• ”Store owner calls cops on black man for asking why he sells a Confederate flag vest” - Raw Story
  

During the week afterward, at least one community group largely made up of the group effected, Black LGBTQ+ people, had two events to start addressing the conflict:

• An education/information rally in a neighborhood parking lot
  
  
• A brainstorming/planning meeting at a church in an adjacent neighborhood

I participated in the meeting later in the week at the church. A striking phenomenon became apparent at this meeting: most of the people at the meeting didn't have obvious clout in the neighborhood (not being residents, not being business owners). However, these effected people had skin in the game, having contributed and continue to contribute to the LGBTQ+ community in Boystown. Many at the meeting expressed that they had gotten so much emotional support from Boystown that these two racist conflicts felt like a huge betrayal and made these people question what they gave to and have gotten from Boystown.

These feelings from the aggressed against the aggressors has validity and lie on the right side of the conflict. Nonetheless, these people have minimal local neighborhood clout since they don't live there. The aggressors, on the other hand, have clout as a business and a possible neighborhood resident. The only recourse for the aggressed upon seems to be:

• A legal appeal to a higher power (the city, the state, and/or even the country since this could be considered a civil rights violation, at least in a more sensical age)
  
  
• A public relations/moral suasion approach

The meeting didn't discuss legal appeals much. At least two people, however, sounded like they came from a City of Chicago department that addresses these types of issues and volunteered to discuss legal and advocacy options. A general consensus existed that legal options for these two conflicts would take awhile and, to some degree, would likely happen. Legal appeals, however, probably wouldn't need or allow the assistance of everyone who want to express their anger and sadness through action, and who want to make a difference.

These people who wouldn't have involvement in the legal fight would need to get involved in the political public relations/moral suasion campaign. This approach begs a question: Without political clout or any obvious leverage, how does this community (Black LGBTQ+) within a community (larger LGBTQ+ community, especially those who patronize Boystown establishments) push for their inclusion and to be taken seriously as a group and individuals that should be seen and heard?

I should have posted this Part 1 last week. The whole concept felt a lot simpler in my head than it has come out so far in my drafting. As things stand now, Part 2 could be lengthy with a portion of some wonky strategic political and public relations stuff. Writing it has taken a few days of random bits of empty time while on buses, at lunch, etc. etc. I don't know how long this series of essays will be. Please stay tuned to see where it will go!

Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 have been completed and posted! Please feel free to move onto the next parts.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

PREVIEW: Relevant News Articles for a Future Essay, "Redlining Political Communities"

I've started writing a pretty wonky and lengthy analysis about affecting structural change through politics, culture, and markets in reaction to a concentration of intersectional conflict that occurred in my neighborhood about a week and half ago. You will need to wait until next week or so to delve into the wonkiness.

For now, though, here are the articles I provide in the essay that provide descriptions of the conflicts and some context to the conflicts:

• "Group Calls For Beatnix Boycott After Boystown Store Owner Called Cops On Customers Who Complained About Confederate Flag Vest" - Book Club Chicago
  
  
• "Rap Ban May Be Lifted At Progress Bar, But Boystown Needs To Confront Its History Of Racism, Activists Say" - Book Club Chicago
  
  
• "Store owner calls cops on black man for asking why he sells a Confederate flag vest" - Raw Story

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Does Scarcity of Market Share Lead Billionaires, Entrepreneurs, and Crony Politicians into Tunnel Vision for More Market Share?

Only after the second chapter of Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir present an argument that scarcity creates an involuntary tunnel vision effect with attention. This book so far bolsters a hypothesis that I'm coming up with: that billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians in capitalist cultures forge paths of growth and accumulating more rather than sharing and supporting society by fighting against material scarcity because the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians are stuck in a mindset of scarcity.

But a scarcity of what? It's not material wealth. Maybe it's time, but they could easily hand off things. Maybe privacy, authenticity of people around them, genuine relationships with people, etc. etc. No, accumulating more and more material things wouldn't help address those scarcities except for maybe paying more for security to guard against sycophants.

Maybe the billionaire, the successful entrepreneur, the crony politician feel a scarcity of attention market share. Even those with the biggest market share now have to fear competitors and innovators that threaten to make the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician obsolete. Because lose that market share, especially with a lavish lifestyle, the billionaire/successful entrepreneur/crony politician risks losing their lifestyle and possibly losing all their material wealth. They would fall into material scarcity, which they may never have experienced before or have a memory of material scarcity being a horrible experience.

And today's capitalist, competitive business, finance, and political culture further exacerbates this sense of scarcity for the billionaires, successful entrepreneurs, and crony politicians. This hypothesis doesn't look to garner sympathy for these billionaires and successful entrepreneurs (and politicians that have gained power through the lobbyists that advocate for these businesses, billionaires, and successful entrepreneurs) because this path hurts society more than it helps.

Heck, as an aside, just look at how much middle and high school culture in the United States supports the importance of popularity and market share of attention instead of being a good person.

Rather, I seek to indict society and developed Western culture for building up this ideology and inflicting people with this state of mind. Any thoughts on this hypothesis? Any thoughts on fighting this phenomenon? Any objections?

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Transcending the Bretton Woods System, Either Through Smooth US Participation or Crashing Out Alone (or maybe with Britain)

Trump, the GOP, and Iran could very well shatter the Bretton Woods system when the EU, Russia, and China put their Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) into play. At the very least, the SPV could destroy the US's dominance of the system.

From what I've read, transcending the Bretton Woods system would lead to a better world. Bretton Woods has become an obsolete system that worked well for the rebuilding and development of Europe and the world after World War II up to around 1960. The US and world has floundered since then, except for China who has existed outside of the Bretton Woods system but interacts with it.

The sudden change from the Special Purpose Vehicle would hurt the US a lot. Trump should receive the blame for it, as he dropped the Iran Deal, has put up sanctions via the Bretton Woods system, and has escalated tensions even further by sending troops and military equipment to Iraq, probably to provide stronger enforcement on sanctions and ostracism than economic sanctions alone.

No, a more gradual transcendence of the Bretton Woods system would work much better for everyone. The Hothead in Chief and the GOP, however, look very intent on isolating the United States and making things difficult when the transcendence of Bretton Woods occurs.

Hopefully, it doesn't hurt too much, or we, the voters, can get cooler heads in charge of things before things go boom. Maybe we can work to apply some pressure on the current Powers That Be. Can we get the Powers to cool down on these things to prevent them from screwing the country over? Can we get the Powers to instead, participate with the world to build a better world through transcendence of the Bretton Woods system?

Even if the transcendence means giving up the power the US has by maintaining the reserve currency, the dollar, can we get the Powers to understand that transcending the Bretton Woods system probably provides the best option? The Bretton Woods system found its power in the United States giving to the rest of the world through the Marshall Plan then "giving" through neoliberal multinational corporations, offshoring jobs, and a strong dollar that helps provide a target for investment.

Trump talks about foreign trade being unfair to the United States. Trade had developed that way because back at the beginning of the Bretton Woods system, boosting up the rest of the world led to boosting up the United States. The rest of the world NEEDED to buy from the United States. By giving the rest of the world resources, the US gave itself a trade surplus and even some political capital. The rest of the world had done a good job developing and recovering by the time the '60s came around, though.

The United States had its own internal cultural issues to deal with in the '60s (and which apparently we still need to deal with), but the US had plateaued when it came to trade and the economy. Just read up on the Nixon Shock and ensuing economic history of the United States.

In my opinion, the Financial Crisis of 2008 marked the beginning of the end for the postwar era, the culmination of United States neoliberal latching onto the Bretton Woods system because the country doesn't know much of anything else. This decline could explain the current stability and hopeful absence of a decade border years crash (at most turn of the decades since the '70s, the US has faced some crash).

Trump deserves credit for having an inkling of changing economic times, but only that, an inkling. He understands that something needs to change. Nonetheless, Trump looks to go about resolving the issue wrong. Instead of bringing the world together to explore the current milieu then work out a solution, he wants to go at it alone (maybe with Britain) and to be First.

Even Trump's cries for fairness when it comes to trade might have an inkling of truth to it. I can't get behind his implication of fairness being about respecting our sovereignity. Trump's behavior doesn't lend credence to any other interpretation of his use of the word fair.

If fairness means the US getting the better side of "the deal", the reason for that resolution doesn't come from United States having more leverage. The ability of the rest of the world being able to topple the Bretton Woods economic regime with the SPV shows that the US doesn't haven't this kind of leverage. The US, especially with Trump at the head, has acted as a self-aggrandizing bully for too long. The Cold War probably provided some justification for the rest of the world accepting big honcho United States. With the Cold War officially over, though, the world doesn't have a clear black and white scorched Earth situation anymore to unite opposing sides.

The smaller countries around the world can come together in a coalition to face off against the United States, which Trump encourages with his behavior, especially with breaking the Iran Deal, setting up sanctions, and sending the military over. Since leverage won't work to strike a "fair deal", fairness needs to come from both a

• Humble United States acknowledging that it accomplished an immense goal but has become exhausted
• Somewhat grateful rest of the world that acknowledges that the US helped them recover for 15 or so years, the US had gotten set in its ways, and its now time for the rest of the world to provide a helping hand to the US - the balance of trade and capital has changed

Who can predict what the world will look like after transcendence? Who could expect the United States to humble itself? How does the United States deserve gratefulness after it took for granted a world order that propped up the power of the United States at the expense of other nations, especially when the United States kept moving forward on the path, ignorant or not of the damage it caused?

But the real question: How well can human civilization survive if humans turn on themselves to garner self aggrandizing superiority, especially with climate change on the horizon, ready to destroy civilization? For the sake of civilization, hopefully humans can come to their senses, com together, then transcend the Bretton Woods system together. At the very least, hopefully we can get leaders for the United States that understand the importance of participating in the transcendence rather than being left out by our own choosing.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee or patronizing me via Patreon.

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Collage of Abortion and Reproductive Health Tweets and Articles - I Can Do Better

After a Facebook argument with someone this past weekend about WHO should post and HOW they should post about abortion stuff, I challenged myself to post what I had posted and found online about the topic. My argument: men should focus more on posting, sharing, and boosting the voices of women on this topic. I don't particularly have any rationale other than men don't have to go through the physical travails/burdens/joys of pregnancy and abortion. Furthermore, men can impregnate a woman through consensual or nonconsensual sex then run away. Women have to carry the child for nine months and also have to deal with knock on effects before and afterward, such as salary inequality, body going crazy, risk of death during pregnancy, and the list goes on and on.

Not aware of knowing anyone who has had an abortion (though I expect I probably do since 1 in 4 woman have had an abortion) or having been in a situation where I've even considered abortion, just thinking through the implications of what women have to go through regarding pregnancy, I can understand the importance of giving women their choice. I have plenty of other issues with conservatives anti-choice and reproductive stances, but this post is about empowering women's speech and assisting where I can to elevate their platform on the topic of abortion and reproductive health.

My verdict on myself: I can do better. I procrastinated and worried a lot about putting together this post. Looking through the Tweets I plan to embed and the links I'll post, I feel good that a good share come from woman. Nonetheless, the Tweets and links feel more about taking a position and action urged to take to fight the anti-choice states outlawing abortion and pro-choice states trying to protect the ability for women to choose abortion and to exercise decisions when it comes to reproductive health. Few of them seem to touch upon the human side of reproductive health or even the thinking and reasoning that goes into choosing reproductive health decisions or policies to take, especially from women's standpoint.

Below are the Tweets and links:

Illinois MUST pass the Reproductive Health Act. Contact your IL rep TODAY: https://t.co/Lp0gNsp4aR #PassTheRHA #RHAinIL pic.twitter.com/OHUdNww97s

— Planned Parenthood (@PPIAction) May 15, 2019

Healthcare is a human right. Abortion is healthcare. Come to @NewOrleansDSA's health fair this weekend and join our demand for #MedicareForAll! pic.twitter.com/fcEUkfLhKO

— babe cute (@cateroot) May 15, 2019

Call me whatever you like. I’m not sorry about my abortion. Contraception failed me and I did what was best for my mental and physical health at the time. And I would do it again if I had to. I don’t feel at ALL ashamed, and if you had one too, for any reason, neither should you.

— Jameela Jamil 🌈 (@jameelajamil) May 17, 2019

pic.twitter.com/SDjKS5YU2F

— Christine Sharp (@christinesharp) May 22, 2019

ASAP Call To Action - In spite of yesterday's #StopTheBans protests across Arizona every single Republican signed last night to co-sponsor HB2759. Dial 701-484-0521 for a script and to be connected to the House switchboard. #StopTheBansPhx #StopTheBansAZ @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/mf60colFKq

— Indivisible of AZ (@IndivisibleofAZ) May 22, 2019

In Alabama, Ohio, & Georgia you can't harvest organs from someone who died w/o their consent—but you can force an 11-year-old rape victim to have her rapists child w/o her consent.

In short, even a corpse in AL, OH, & GA has more rights over its body than do women & girls.😳

— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) May 15, 2019

Yo, Illinois peeps, want to help defend Abortion as Health Care? Go to https://t.co/k2xKYjvMEU to urge your representative to vote to pass the Reproductive Health Act!

— The_Lex (@screwjaw) May 16, 2019

Yet another point to @ewarren with a thought out approach to strike down anti-choice. Also a reminder that need to think of courts when voting & state/local elections important, too!

Congressional Action to Protect Choice – Team Warren – Medium https://t.co/eua1gfsI6D

— The_Lex (@screwjaw) May 17, 2019

There is no state in the country where support for banning abortion reaches even 25 percent. (Data for Progress analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies) pic.twitter.com/lrOxU0eNaz

— Data for Progress (@DataProgress) May 15, 2019

I always wanted to know what would happen if women (51% of the population) actually had proportional representation.

“Bills prioritizing women’s health and safety have soared to the top of the agenda.” https://t.co/GNngRvXS2B

— Amy McGrath (@AmyMcGrathKY) May 17, 2019

"Pro-life" laws kill people.
"Pro-life" rhetoric kills people.
"Pro-life" movement kills people.

Abortion is healthcare. Abortion saves lives. If you think human life is worth preserving, protect abortion rights.#StopTheBans

— Alexandra Erin @ WisCon (@AlexandraErin) May 21, 2019

73% of Americans want abortion to remain safe and legal. We’ll fight like hell at the ballot box to make sure Trump and Republicans don’t roll back years of progress. https://t.co/76tzogjSH3

— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) May 22, 2019

lmao pic.twitter.com/tBKMuPMPeB

— dsa otherkin caucus⌚ (@QueenInYeIIow) May 23, 2019

Abortion Shaping Up To Be The Health Care Fight Of 2020: Democrats think Republicans may have overreached with Alabama's anti-abortion law, alienating voters ahead of the next election - Huffpost

Kirsten Gillibrand Says If Trump Wants A War With America's Women, 'He Will Lose' - NPR

No abortion bans, PERIOD. [petition] - Planned Parenthood

Men Are Sharing Their Abortion Stories. Is That Helpful? - Slate

How Sen. Elizabeth Warren would protect abortion rights - Politico

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

Uncanny TV: A Pilot Episode that Provides Uplifting and Entertaining Instilled Activism

The Lextopia has gotten increasingly political since 2016. Nothing wrong with that path, especially if it brings in readers who feel that they get something out of my ruminations and attempted exhortations.

Politics, especially during the current state of things, can make things depressing and angering. Sometimes a person just wants to yell that we need to focus on fun, happiness, kindness, and positivity -- after which can lead to slight guilt because all these depressing issues and conflicts matter and remain. People and policy hurt others, especially in these times of increasing illiberalism (even as I hold out hope for coming together to make better times during the 2020 Elections).

The one and likely only episode of Uncanny TV contributes to a solution for this cycle of seeking positivity but feeling guilt at avoiding negativity in the world: culture that looks to affect positive change and fight the negative factors in the world. Recording for Uncanny TV occurred the afternoon of Saturday, May 4, 2019 in front of a live studio audience, in which I got to join. The crew and cast then sent the recording to the editing team, with a rough estimated release date of sometime in the summer.

Uncanny TV started as an idea of personal chemistry between Michi Trota and Matt Peters that then became a stretch goal for Uncanny Magazine of Science Fiction and Fantasy for the November 2018 to October 2019 publishing year.

Ideally Uncanny Magazine would have raised enough money for Uncanny TV to record a whole six episode run, but they only raised enough to record the pilot. Only having the funds to record a pilot didn't stop Trota and Peters from recording an episode that supports the mission of Uncanny Magazine featuring a passionate and provocative investment into science fiction, fantasy, and geek/nerd culture that leaves room to feel.

Trota and Peters set up the production as something of a talk show with emphasis focusing on their three Chicago-centric nerd activist and/or entrepreneurial guests:

• Daniel Jun Kim: Creative Content Manager, Editor, Writer, Geek/Nerd, Justice Activist with aspirations of becoming a real life Cleric in the vein of fantasy adventuring healer and moral support (which sounds much less fantastical in a world with projections of civilization ending and the world becoming post apocalyptic in our lifetimes if we don't start doing something about it soon)
  
  
• Keisha Howard: Formerly focused on Marketing & Sales for employers turned Technology Advocate, Geek Culture Personality, Futurist, Entrepreneur, and in all those capacities, creating inclusive spaces and relationships for the realms of gaming, geek, and tech through Sugar Gamers
  
  
• Dawn Xiana Moon - Always a geek and musician (sometimes even singing about nerdy stuff) who grew into tech and belly dancing, including running a troupe that combines belly dancing, fire dancing, and cosplay called Raks Geek

If you clicked on the links of all the people in front of the camera, you may have noticed that all of them, from hosts to guests, are people of color. Similar to how Jim Hines says in his Uncanny Magazine essay, "The Politics of Comfort" that all fiction says something political, even when it seems like the author wrote the fiction for hegemonic comforting consumption, peoples' everyday lives, vocations, and avocations can become political.

Just caring for others and being kind is political activity. Just sharing and reflecting back at people the same inherent characteristics while leveling up on accomplishments is political activity. Just making money by entertaining fellow nerds and geeks then sending that money to worthwhile causes is political activity (OK, this last one has more obvious political connotations, but sourcing that money through a combination of creative expression and nerdiness can make a political act more fun than just straight up protesting, rallying, attending meetings, letter writing, petition signing, voting, or anything else that you normally might think as political).

In sum, Uncanny TV did a great job showcasing these three outstanding and interesting nerdy entrepreneurial activists. Trota and Peters brought together three Chicago-based personalities that demonstrate that politics and activism doesn't always need to gravitate around anger, frustration, and depression. We can use culture and creative expression to communicate political messages and support political activity while also entertaining, uplifting, and gathering together others.

Unfortunately, the finalized version won't become available to the public for a few months now. Keep your eyes out for this bright spot in these contentious, partisan, and siloed times. The pilot episode of Uncanny TV might not change the world overnight, but it provides proof that people out there aim to not just fight back the darkness, but to bring light and hope to the country and the world. You might find yourself entertained and chuckling here and there. Heck, maybe you'll even find yourself inspired enough to share some kind, positive, and eye-opening entertainment and inspiring work to share. We can't just fight anger with anger, or we'll just contribute to making a self destructive cycle that will someday kill us all.

Go out there and create! But make sure to make some time to watch Uncanny TV, too.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw and Mastadon at @screwjaw@mastodon.social for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth!

People, We Have the Power to Choose Our Leaders and Our Path or Succumb to Powerlessness

Those on the Far Left need to get some more empowering messages and rhetoric. The Far Left has valid criticism for the Liberal/Progressive Left, Center Left, and all of the Right, but the Far Left has beat a dead horse with messages and rhetoric that demoralize the People of the United States and emphasize powerlessness.

I'm not pushing for dehumanizing or armed violent revolutionary rhetoric. Nor do I want to discourage criticism of privilege and bigotry in all their forms in society. The United States already has too much violence and an armed revolution, in my opinion, would just continue the cycle with a different flavor. This country does need its ugly tendencies exposed and treated.

Exposure without treatment doesn't empower citizens, though. Citizens become resigned to powerlessness. I get where the Far Left comes from: if they reveal "false consciousness" and lies, then the truth will fill the vacuum left after exorcising falseness. Alas, citizens need more than exposure therapy, which will risk injecting citizens with learned helplessness.

A couple weeks ago, I got into an Facebook group conversation about people needing to understand policy more and politicians should treat citizens as people who can understand. Long story short: I believe well-intentioned "everyday" people propose bad solutions to the Social Security "crisis" because they don't understand the basic concept of Social Security as insurance. Rather, everyday people think of social security as public assistance (like welfare, food stamps, etc).

The conversation spiraled outward to me arguing that if citizens understood the workings of policy accurately (at least conceptually), then elections could have better results. The other person argued that citizens shouldn't be expected to understand how things work. Citizens just need to know who's working for them, who's winning, who's losing, and if the citizen believes they're getting what they think they should get. I also made a remark or two that I thought the other person's viewpoint undersold what the electorate is capable of, and that we need to have more faith in the voters.

In the same Facebook group within the last couple days, an individual made an argument that the status quo continues because the American people buy into Max Weber's Protestant Work Ethic and the elites/Powers That Be keep down the every person. I had incited this response by arguing that the current status quo continues because the supposed elites and Powers That Be play Divide and Conquer with the everyday people. A lot of activists further fuel the electoral apathy by not caring enough to vote, being too disillusioned to vote, and all around believing that the elites and Powers That Be are in control of politics, business, and anything else that matters, keeping the everyday person down. All this despite, for all intents and purposes, the electoral system is the most democratic it has ever been for some populations (barring voter suppression by legislation & deception). Street activists need to get into electoral politics and regular everyday people should work to understand the government, policies, political moves, and look to get involved civically.

I had a conversation this past weekend with a couple friends about the ubiquitiousness of Facebook and Twitter, as you do while hanging out at a bar. One of the friends mentioned something about how Twitter still remains the best way to advertise something to the public, despite all the misgivings we may have about using these two forms of social media.

I brought up Mastodon, saying that Mastodon provides an interesting social media system/network which could possibly replace the likes of Facebook and Twitter. I tried selling them on the idea of Mastodon using the fact that the Sysop (system operator) or "council of operators" of a particular node can develop its own particular rules and only set up "treaties" with other nodes that share similar values (or not, if the Ops want to run things that way). This ability to make rules, adopt values, and choose node connections provides more potential for moral social media.

Maybe I could have described Mastodon better, more clearly, and in a compelling fashion. It had gotten late and the discussion happened at a bar, though. My friends could care less because I didn't sell them on it. I'm convinced that their lack of interest comes more from inertia, though, and a resignation that nothing can compete against Facebook or Twitter, especially a form of social media like Mastodon that doesn't have any inherent profit motive to it. Mastodon just provides a framework for social mediaing.

I tried working against their inertia by arguing that Mastodon could take over the social media space, if people like us put our energies into getting other people to adopt it. They used past examples of failed attempts: Google+, MySpace, Friendster, and other social media spaces that don't have the foundations and territory that Facebook and Twitter have developed.

I even made arguments based on the ambivalence we all feel about Facebook and Twitter, emphasizing the ability for Mastodon nodes to create rules and follow values. My arguments didn't phase them. To garner the footprint desired by them, for now and forever more until the government or some other social element does something, Facebook and Twitter remain the only option.

The conversation reached an interesting point here, though. Elites and the Powers That Be came into the discussion. Facebook and Twitter have loads of money and capital. The two social media platforms have the marketers and the personnel that know how to manipulate users and the population. Had we gotten to talking about Russian meddlers? Have we gotten to the point with social media that to try promoting something somewhere, we have to compromise and stay on a platform that creates so much ambivalence? Again, I pushed that with some effort, anyone, including us could work to get people to immigrate over to Mastodon. All it would take is effort, planning, and to build up some momentum.

But alas, the discussion ended with sighs of disbelief and resorting back to arguments based on the elites and The Powers That Be (apparently Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey when it comes to social media).

On one of the podcasts I listen to daily, The Daily Zeitgeist, the talking heads brought up a familiar talking point: That the two major political parties in the United States are no different from each other and that they're run by the elites and The Powers That Be. I could Tweet at them to try debating the issue, but I don't see it accomplishing anything.

Suffice to say, as much as the Democrat party doesn't go as far Left as I'd like, it still has enough to differentiate itself from the Republican party to make it redeemable, in my opinion. At least the Democratic tries to remain a "Big Tent" party rather than push for policies, tactics, and rhetoric that turns off the majority of the population with dog whistling. Once again, I found myself frustrated with hearing people in the United States using rhetoric that felt disempowering and giving up on some level. Aim for the sky, I guess, and blame the elites and Powers That Be when things remain less than ideal.

This article argues that having a strong Establishment in a party leads to smooth politics, at the cost of a high level of a democratic process. Such an argument leads to the counterpoint that the present has become a point at which true democratic process has reached a peak.

Arguably, the major two parties will likely continue to have the most realistic chance of winning foreseeable elections. Barring that end result, though, a purer democracy, the votes of people in the parties or participating in Open Primaries, will determine the results of primaries and what candidates get sent onward to the General Elections. This level of democracy in action became more salient when the Democratic party cut the power of superdelegates for the 2020 Democratic Primaries.

Unfortunately, since Trump has the status of POTUS incumbent and practically taken over the Republican Party in an autocratic fashion, it may not feel like a democracy if you vote in the Republican Primaries or the only the General Election. If you want to simulate a democracy, you can always vote for Bill Weld in the Republican Primary, I guess.

Anyone technically could run to be the Democratic candidate for President (and kinda are with about 21 running at this point) and any other office from village council member to city alderperson to mayor to state representative to US representative to governor to US senator. States also have some interesting electable positions like Attorney General and Secretary of State, too. These positions all play important roles, and you should research, campaign, and vote for all these positions (maybe even run!).

Since the tumult of the 1968 Democratic Primaries and Watergate, the Establishments have been losing their influence as the public distrust in politicians and the parties have grown. Excluding the time of the Democratic Superdelegates, the political press has stepped up to somewhat take on the role of party bosses, focusing and ignoring candidates the press favors or dislikes. Notice lately with the rise of electronic communication (e-mail, social media, blogs) leading to an explosion of expressing opinions and knowledge at an increase the likes never seen since Gutenberg invented the printing press.

A podcast the other day mentioned that with the decline of the Superdelegates, donations by small donors and big donors has taken their place for elevating candidates. Along with polls determining which Democratic Primary candidates make it to the first two debates, a semi-complex calculation counting unique donors that contribute to a candidate will help determine the candidates' point and clout accumulation to get on the debate stage. Money does a horrible job equalizing people, but by becoming a donor to a Democratic Primary candidate at this stage, you enter a vote to increase that candidates clout, reach, and opportunity (even just a one-time $5 or single $10 contribution to their campaign will help them reach that threshold).

Anyone can run for President of the United States. A candidate has to know how to run a good nation-wide campaign, including:

• Organize
• Hire people
• Fundraise
• Give speechs
• Hold informational meetings
• Hold rallies
• Charm the populace
• File for spots on the ballot in hopefully all 50 states
• Campaign the delegates

and the list goes on and on and on what a candidate must do and what resources they have to coordinate to make it through the campaign slugfest. Anyone off the street could run, but only a few will rise up to have a chance in the Primaries and in the General Election.

The same goes for US representatives, US senate seats up for grabs, and other elections, but maybe not as huge of a field (though, if they're smart, they'll work together with Presidential and other candidates and organizations). The Party organizations and committees may still play a large part in getting the candidates seen, heard, and taken seriously, but that's just money and organization. The DCCC provides a lot of money and organization, but in this day and age, with electronic media and communication along with the press trying to get the first scoop and post it up as fast as possible, us in the public and the press can play a big part in democratizing the process even more.

Living in a time when the United States has the most potential for democracy, the most chance for everyday people to have their voices heard, I hate to hear words and rhetoric that encourage powerlessness, disillusionment, and learned helplessness. I don't want to hear that your vote doesn't matter. I don't want to hear that the parties are practically the same (since we largely get to choose whom from those parties run in the General Election). I don't want to hear that larger forces, the elites, or the Powers That Be will ultimately decide things in the end. I don't want to hear it from the press, from the everyday people, or from politicians.

We need the press and politicians to inspire as many people as they can

• To engage in the civic discourse
• To campaign for candidates that they believe in
• To contribute within their means
• To research the candidates
• To fight voter suppression
• To fight turnout suppression
• To feel that our participation and votes DO MATTER

We, the people, are powerful, especially when and if we come together to organize and rise up in support of a candidate and cause that we believe in (or at least believe in more than the worst evils). Our vote alone may not matter, but our vote combined with those we agree with makes a huge difference. A virtuous loop must form to build the energy of the election:

• Politicians inspiring while delivering a platform
• The press inspiring while analyzing the candidates
• Organizations and parties inspiring while delivering a platform
• Voters feeling the inspiration and making their voices heard

And this is where Howard Dean goes "Rah!" It's time to get involved, People!

[I want to acknowledge that voter suppression exists and effectively stops many people from voting. If you can help them vote, awesome, great. If these people can fight the forces working against them and get the vote, awesome, too.

In the end, though, I can't blame people who face the legal challenges of suppression for not getting excited and not getting their vote in. If, however, people who have the power to vote can inspire the suppressed to help out and if the suppressed have the motivation to help out, it will be much appreciated. If we can get the right people into office and policies and judgments into place, then maybe we can make voter suppression stories part of a dark past.

Another good way to fight voter suppression is to donate to Stacey Abrams' organization Fair Fight Action. I think Abrams even aims to have Georgia be subject to the testing rules of the Voting Rights Act again.]

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth.!

Cries for Civility Ignore Disgusting Reality Created by Freeloading Bullies

Today's entry will consist of a few things that I've encountered on the Internet in the media that provide some insight into our culture and the human condition during partisan times.

My first entry for consideration: "Democracy Is a Blessing: Phatic Ritual and the Public Sphere in Northeast Brazil".

The essay gets fairly academic. However, "Democracy Is a Blessing. . ." provides some interesting perspective that Brazilians may have forgotten in the last decade or so. The essay might help us innovate some ideas and practices to address some parts of our existential crisis. Frankly, I might characterize a fair amount of people in the GOP and Trump supporters as White Supremacist deplorables. A lot of them also people might have what George Lakoff calls Authoritarian Hierarchical Personalities that feel frustrated at the levelling off of relations between people, the generations, etc. etc.

A lot of this thinking on my part comes from hearing Baby Boomers complaining that younger generations showing too much familiarity, not enough respect, expecting the world from the people around them, and not paying their dues. At the same time, though, most older generations on their way out make this complaint about the generations under them. Even elder politicians told Barack Obama, a late Baby Boomer, that he should wait his turn as Obama clawed his way to the top (for a podcast version of Obama's story, check out WBEZ's Making Obama series).

Read enough about politics and businesses, and you'll run into younger generations "not paying their dues" or "not waiting their turn". At the same time, the younger generations complain that older people are "keeping them down" or "not teaching them how things work".

The United States definitely has proven an interesting testing ground for the tensions between tradition and progress, conservatism and liberalism, young and old, hierarchy and informality. This country has also acted as a Person on the Frontier trying to act as the City on the Hill, a youngish country ignoring its tradition while trying to create and "protect" its tradition (read up on the Magna Carta, An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown, and you'll see where some of our traditions and Constitutional Amendments come from!).

I appreciate the tension between the slackening of formality and the phatic demonstrations of less digital people in the world. Lately I've wondered if this country's focus so much on growth and efficiency has led to people enjoying each other less and trying to avoid human interaction as it gets in the way of improvement and accomplishment. At the same time, I'm probably the person most likely to complain about people interrupting me and how much of my day goes into interacting with people.

Maybe my appreciation of that tension comes from a yearning of more connection with people in real time, hoping for more experience of positive emotion, not just guilt at not accomplishing as much as I should have. Even before a study pointed out loneliness as a public health crisis, my mind had fixated more on the rational fact that I need to connect with people for my health, to fend off bad health, not necessarily because of some authentic, instinctual gregariousness.

All of which feels like a ruminating transition to an interesting discussion on an episode of the NPR Individisible limited series podcast (not associated with the "grassroots" political organization by the same name). Kerri Miller (NPR host in Minnesota) hosted the episode, trying to focus on and understand how partisanship since 2016 has built walls and has created so much tension.

A portion of the episode explored our sense of what we consider the sacred (or inviolable) lines that we think others shouldn't cross. Amongst family, friends, co-workers, strangers on the streets, people we meet in bars, etc. we cross each others' line, working ourselves up when we learn someone else has voted for Trump or Hillary, how they feel about immigration, their thoughts on capitalism or socialism, abortion, and so many things now.

I have a criticism for these kinds of discussions by the media about the loss of civility. The pundits that just want civility and peace don't appreciate that these situations cause real harm. The discussions don't, but the events and interactions that create these topics do. People who need asylum because of horrible conditions behind them get turned away, leaving them with nowhere to go (after the United States swore never again after World War II, when the country turned away Jewish people trying to escape the Holocaust). Just yesterday, after the shooting at UNC Charleston, I wondered if shootings and hate crimes would soon become an everyday experience. Will we bat a lash at a White Supremacy act of terrorism next year?

Finding some kind of ritual or set of gestures that could diffuse tensions and glue together social bonds would do a great service for this country. At the same time, my readings into evolutionary anthropological morality shows that these tensions and conlfict has existed from day one of human existence, and maybe even longer before that. The Republicans since at least Reagan like to complain about freeloading welfare cheats, just sucking up our taxes. A theory that has just started revealing itself to me today has argued that bullies act as a type of freeloader, too. How did older societies regulate freeloading on the bottom and at top? Shame, which most of us seem to wield as a weapon until someone picks up a physical weapon or explosive (even though in more serious cases, people would be expelled from society or even killed).

Suffice to say, the United States has some serious issues that people need to talk about and resolve (and possibly more). Good will and faith needs exercising, but the will, faith, and civility can't come at the cost of actually discussing the issues to resolve them in a way that uses facts, truth, real respect, and kindness.

Because right now, we have people in positions of power that look to push into reality found community causes like Dominionism that seeks to "redistribute the wealth up to priests" and to make the United States into a Christian theocracy. One person with a powerful political position that believes in Dominionism: Ted Cruz. Just take a look at this video of Ted's father, Rafael Cruz, give a speech about how Ted will further the cause of Dominionism (first few seconds is part of the speech, then you have to wait a bit to get back to the speech, but these other parts provide some further context):



I just became exposed to Dominionism today. It has helped make a lot more sense of Trump's administration to me.

We really need to get our act together, fellow country people. The freeloading of bullies needs to stop.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth.

Political Liminal Space Thoughts on Impeachment and Getting Out the Vote

The Chicago Municipal Elections wrapped up a couple weeks ago. Whenever people talked about the 2020 Election, I would say that I couldn't spare thought to it yet. I had to focus on the local election (which can sometimes be more important and have more of an effect on our everyday lives).

That liminal state between elections has started. Tensions have risen because the Justice Department released the Mueller Report and the House of Representatives pushes to investigate more. Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, two 2020 candidates for President, have called for the House to file to Impeach Trump. Others want it, too.

I don’t know what to think about pushing for impeachment. The Senate plain doesn't have the numbers to remove Trump from office. Events and revelations have very little chance of influencing Republicans to push out Trump. Even with the numbers, Pence replacing Trump looks unattractive (though removing them both at the same time?).

If impeachment fails, it will likely improve Trump’s approval rating. Trump could play up the persecuted victim role (though he fills himself with spite and resentment), which could garner Trump points. Bill Clinton had that result when Gingrich and the Republicans tried kicking Clinton out of office back in the ‘90s.

An impeachment process, especially a failed one, could also embolden accusations by the Right that politics and government have become corrupted by the Left and the Left's supposed "shadow government". How much would Trump question fraud in Election 2020? Even if Trump lost legitimately in 2020, would he step down peacefully? Would strong enough doubt in the government and politics by a certain, aggressive, armed group of people on the Right lead to Trump becoming a dictator without the blessing of our democratic process? Could Civil War break out as this country takes sides, voluntarily or involuntarily, then fights for rule? The It Could Happen Here podcast makes a plausible case that any of these scenarios could occur.

At the same time, impeachment could have its uses, even if Trump doesn't get removed. Trump has and continues to cause damage to the structure and existential existence of the government and the United States liberal values. Impeachment could become a tool for harm reduction. The Mueller investigation and the House investigations have done their part to slow down Trump in "Making America Cruel Again" and has made many of his past staffers hesitate to follow Trump's orders because they fear the law. Investigations and even impeachment keep the dangers of misbehaving in the conscious mind of staffers who believe they have loyalty to the United States, not Trump, or fear repercussions.

Impeachment and investigations also cause Trump and his staffers to deal with demands put on them, whether by Congressional request or subpoenas and also from the media trying to get their story. Addressing these demands probably wouldn't cause too much trouble for a President or a staff trying to do the right thing for the country with nothing to hide.

On some level, though, these people know the wrongness of many things they do. They have to try saving face and put up a distorted facade of reality or use litigious ways to delay the inevitable. These steps take time and energy to strategize and think things through. Dealing with these threats, Trump and his cronies have less time and energy to increase the level of cruelty in the country.

Impeachment would cause major delays in Mitch McConnell's agenda to appoint as many young conservative judges as he can. These appointees will make decisions about laws for decades to come and cause much more impact than McConnell, Trump, or any policy maker could do alone. Keeping the number of justices appointed at this point to a minimum will do much to maintain the integrity of American liberal and pluralistic values that McConnell and Trump would love to see taken apart for many years to come.

The two I's also provide the function of getting information out to the public. Just look at people poring over the Mueller Report. The press has leaked out much more information about this administration that the public generally doesn't get wind of during other political configurations. Trump and his cronies fear rightly the kind of information that will get out to the public. As this information leaks out, the public can see that Trump and his cronies distort reality and have motives that seek to undermine the liberal and pluralistic values that make up America and actually make it great.

At this point, though, impeachment looks more damaging and risky than helpful, especially since the tools of investigation and oversight the Constitution gives Congress haven't been exhausted. Having impeachment on deck for use later can time shift the power of delay and harm reduction, holding back Trump and his administration from unleashing their cruelty and distortions over a longer horizon of time.

Using all these processes to expose Trump and his cronies as incompetent bad actors can get fatiguing and play into the accusations of partisanship on the Left, though. Democrats, the Left, and candidates need to focus more on issues, platforms, and even the larger story of the United States. Trump should leave office, but he should leave office because he has bad views, bad opinions, bad ideas, and bad policies in addition to his incompetence and bad faith, not just because he is Trump. If the Senate is convinced he should be impeached, sure, do it. . .but until enough in the Senate are convinced. . ..

Hillary campaigned a lot in the 2016 Election on Trump's not being qualified. The media made it about Trump's incompetence. The Left didn't believe that Trump had become a threat because the Left took for granted that everyone in the country would base their vote on Trump's incompetence, not on lies and distortion of reality as Trump painted a compelling picture and a hopeful story for a certain subsection of the American populace.

However, Trump and the Republicans have shown they want to tear down the good things the United States government can do, like

• Providing a healthcare system that actually helps people
• Starting initiatives to fight Climate Change and save civilization
• Fortifying Social Security funds and services
• Investing in the people of the United States
• Encouraging the people of this country to affirm the humanity of each other
• Securing Equal Opportunity for all
• Stopping student debt from crippling the majority of a generation
• Building bridges, not walls with the outside world
• Stop fanning the flames of bigotry and authoritarianism around the world
• Discouraging White Supremacy and fighting violence and cycles of hate
• Reducing nuclear arms build ups, not encouraging their build up
• Increasing trade and innovation rather than taxing the American people to stop trade, which causes price increases
• Redistribute money from the top down because the top can afford the price (and I'm sorry, but all that wealth after a certain point stops holding worth for the filthy rich, distributing that money down will grow the economy and create more experiential value to those who need it to survive, not for another yacht)
• Keeping families together

By focusing on the issues, platforms, values, and clear true facts, the Democrats, both in office and on the election trail, can do a lot to unveil the distortions of Trump and the Republicans. Trump and the Republicans act in bad faith, illusions, distortions, and misunderstandings of reality.

Maybe these Republicans come from a genuine place, believing the things that they spout. Nonetheless, they still spew out distorted illusions that provide everyday people, especially in a certain subsection of the population, with compelling images and hopes. The Republicans fail to meet both reality and everyday people where they are, instead just offering more and more political junk food and veils of illusion to keep the momentum going forward.

Not to say that the Democrats will prove a savior to the United States. Trump and illiberal conservatives have simply pushed things too far to the Right around the world. In comparison, the big tent Democrats provide a viable alternative because they generally want to

• Provide a social safety net
• Promote tolerance at the very least (no conservatives, tolerance does not mean tolerating hate, oppression, and marginalization), if not full on pluralism and affirmation
• Support truly liberal values
• Grow the economy and keep things affordable
• Save civilization against Climate Change
• Maintain a functioning government

Once the government and world returns to a more sane state, we can focus more on nuanced and intense issues that this cultural and political climate can't even allow into the discussion. Maybe even defeating the illiberal forces in the country and world will allow a breaking up into more political parties to argue over these matters and actually progress to form

• A world that's not seeking to destroy us
• An us not damaging our source of life and survival, the world
• A world in which we can grow to appreciate each other's colorful differences as a way to connect rather than pushing each other away as we try to force others to conform or die

So, how about it? Why don't we form some coalitions to have the People of the United States tell Trump and the backwards Republicans to get out of office during the election rather than try to force them out through a process that could just convince the Right that he was kicked out illegitimately? Getting Trump and Pence out sooner rather than later would help cut down on harm in some ways, but it could also create even more harm is causes the Right to harden their hearts and try to stamp down to force their ideology onto the rest of the world.

The Left shouldn't go high when the other side goes low because it's right and decent. However, the Left should strike hard with rhetoric, ideas, facts, truth, platforms, issues, and good stories to win over the People and show the People that they've been hoodwinked by Trump and by the Republicans. This fight isn't about power. It's about truth and taking the blindfolds off the world, off the People to see the bankrupt system that the Republicans have used to empower and enrich themselves.

Trump and the Republicans can win Election 2020. Accept this as truth. Use it to motivate yourself. As another motivator, remind yourself that the less that people vote, the worse the government and politics get, the more these spaces get filled with corruption. Get out there to vote to bring decency, civility, caring, and function back into the world.

And don't stop with yourself. Fight so that our states don't supress swaths of the population from voting. Get others to fight their apathy, so they educate themselves and get out the vote.

• Give someone you know a ride to the polls
• Help people register to vote by helping them gather together the paperwork
• To find websites for registering
• To go to the location to register
• Helping motivate them to continue with the process

Your vote matters, it matters even more when you work to get other people to vote.

If you don't have the means or ability to help people in the flesh register and to get out the vote, contribute money to the following organizations that work to fight voter suppression and work to educate people about the civic structure of this country:

• The Center for Popular Democracy
• Let America Vote

The future is on us, the People, the citizens, not just our elected officials and their appointees. We put the officials there. We hold the officials accountable. We do it through voting. We do it through organizing. So get off your ass and help make the world better in the future, whether through activism in the flesh or by contributing your money to organizations and candidates that will improve the world.

And don't hesitate to report back to let the readers of The Lextopia know how you've improved the world.

If you like what you see here and in the past and want to free me up for more, support my endeavors by Buying Me a Coffee!

You can also check me out on Twitter at @screwjaw for articles, short form stuff, and a higher frequency/volume of opinions and truth.