In honor of today's Democracy Day of Action, I am revisiting a post from 2010, with minor editing. It's unfortunate that I have go here again, but like the issue of marriage equality, this just keeps popping up, this time in the possible form of a constitutional amendment. Like the constitutional amendment to enshrine marriage inequality, this possible amendment would institute inequality in the constitution of the State of Minnesota. This is the opposite of what constitutions are meant to do.
I have been serving as an election judge since the 2010 primary in August. I enjoy being involved in our political process, and this civic duty is a logical extension of that. It's a long day (14 and a half hours, at the least), but it goes by surprisingly fast, even when turn-out in your precinct is only 22%, as it was for the primary (this was unfortunately rather high, in reality) or 9% for a special election. I knitted six washcloths one election day and almost the whole body of a sweater for my son on another.
On November elections, I do not expect to get that much knitting done (only four much smaller dishcloths) because turn-out would be higher. For the 2010 election, we had 59% in our precinct, which is also, unfortunately, considered high. I expect that 2012 will be higher, though still not what it should be.
We were warned by our head judge that there may be issues with voters wearing "ID Me" buttons or insisting that we check their ID. Just a few days before the election, the Supreme Court had denied a case brought by "Tea Partiers," in which they wanted the right to wear these materials. It was deemed to be covered by the "no campaign or political materials in the polling place" law, and we were to ask people to cover any such items. This includes sample ballots from specific parties and tee shirts that say "Wellstone!" even though he is clearly not running for election.
I did not see any buttons that said "ID Me," but I did have some rather forceful or snide individuals, muttering comments or stating outright nonsense regarding voter identification. I was only on the roster table for a few hours, so I am not sure what other judges may have heard, but I had three notable people offer their opinions. One woman was rather incensed, having "just found out today that Minnesota does not require ID to vote."
"I mean, that's ridiculous."
"It's the law, " I replied.
"Well, it's a stupid law," she said.
Another muttered, when I said that it was the law, "No wonder this state is so screwed up."
The final major comment was from a gentleman who proffered his ID in my face. When I said that we do not require ID, he said he knew, but wanted me to check his ID. I said it was the law that Minnesota does not require ID to vote, and I asked his last name. He remained silent and held the ID in my face. Once I had given him his ballot receipt, he said "It's the government's law that you have to have ID on you at all times. It's the law."
I closed my lips together firmly to keep from answering. He moved on.
Now, I have to say, "Really?" Where does he live, and where is he getting this information, and moreover, why does he believe it?
Voter fraud is a current specter striking fear into the hearts of white people across America. As this issue does divide mostly along partisan lines, with republicans favoring more voter ID requirements and Democrats being against them, I have to ask the question, "Why?"
Is voter fraud a big problem? If so, would identification laws solve it? What's the big deal about requiring ID? You need ID for a lot of things, and voting is pretty important, so requiring ID to do so seems innocuous. Why does it divide along party lines? Who benefits and who loses? Why do some people assume that everyone else is lying, even when they themselves never would? Why didn't these people get upset in 2000 or 2004 when there were massive voting irregularities? Do they believe that liberals are stealing elections through voter fraud, and ID laws will fix that? Do they think that Minnesota is the only state that does not require ID?
In reality, 24 states do not require ID, and the other 26 have varying degrees of requirements. (National Conference of State Legislatures) Furthermore, from what I could gather, voter fraud of the type that would be caught by requiring ID is so rare as to be statistically uncountable, leading Project Vote to say:
"Voter identification requirements, while increasingly popular in state legislatures around the country, are a solution without a problem."
So, if voter fraud via voter impersonation is not a real problem (Again, the kind that would be caught by requiring Voter ID), then what is this really all about?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as much as 12% of the eligible voting population does not have a government-issued photo ID. The majority of these people are seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, students, and women. It seems to me that Voter ID hoopla is meant to instill fear in a certain sector of the population, that certain other sectors of the population are voting illegally, so that ID laws can be passed, making it harder for those certain other sectors of the voting population to vote.
If we are truly concerned about fairness in elections, then we need well-funded, well-trained election oversight departments and officials, who can track down irregularities when they occur. We need to pursue cases of voter intimidation, which, unlike voter impersonation, actually do happen. We need to make information about voting and voting rights as well as election and polling information easily available to the voters.
The "Voter ID" issue is a low-hanging fear-fruit. It "sounds good" when you hear it, and people will shrug, thinking it's no big deal. That's often because they have not thought any deeper about the issue, such as barriers to obtaining government-issued ID, how those barriers affect different groups of people, and who it is that these laws would keep from voting. Once it's personal, and it keeps your grandmother, college-aged son, or disabled friend from casting their vote for an elected official, people start to wake up. We have a growing segment of the population that has to decide between food and medication, or that simply does not have enough to eat. Spending the time and money to get a photo ID is not in the budget. Sometimes, it is not even possible, and these people are voting citizens.
Here in Minnesota, we have an incredibly fair and well-run elections process, with a dedicated Secretary of State and excellent local elections offices. Two widely publicized recounts have proven that Voter ID laws are unnecessary, here or anywhere.
These laws only "sound good" when you don't have to think about it and it doesn't affect you.
I urge you to do all you can to oppose Voter ID laws in Minnesota and around the United States.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Old School
Ok, so I get it. Groups need to have private spaces for the sake of maintaining community. For the most part, this applies to disenfranchised groups like African Americans or, yes, women. When it comes to social elites, however, these groups are usually insulated by their privilege and do not necessarily need artificially imposed privacy to maintain cohesion.
This is why it is insulting and infuriating to read about groups like "C Street" or "Kappa Beta Phi", which is a group of one-percenters. It seems redundant for a bunch of Wall Street financiers to get together for a swanky private party and congratulate themselves. To the average American, it appears that wealth and self-congratulation are the norm for these guys (and "smattering" of gals). After all, while "Main Street" flounders, Wall Street is doing just fine, not in the least because it accepted money from main street taxpayers to bail them out of their self-imposed troubles, all while glibly denying that it was the very government they disdain that saved their smug, shiny asses (See "This American Life" Episode 415: Crybabies).
These guys might believe in Wall Street, after all, there truly is a street named "Wall," but after weighing the evidence, I have decided that the "free market" they tend to extol is a supernatural entity, and I do not believe in it. I do not believe it necessarily selects for quality or in the best interest of the consumer. I do not see any evidence that the free market creates or encourages rational behavior on either the production or consumption side. It seems to me that the "products" these Wall Street guys are creating are not particularly real or of any use to the average consumer (until they fail and crash the entire economy). I don't see this class of individual as creating jobs that are beneficial to America, when considered in proportion to the capital they tie up. It appears that left to their own devices without oversight from an elected government, the lure of massive profits at any cost is too much for most people, and they will do anything to make more money.
I therefore add "The Free Market" to the list of gods in which I do not believe. I hope it enjoys the hazing it gets when it joins Thor, Zeus, and Mammon in the grand ballroom of the subconscious.
This is why it is insulting and infuriating to read about groups like "C Street" or "Kappa Beta Phi", which is a group of one-percenters. It seems redundant for a bunch of Wall Street financiers to get together for a swanky private party and congratulate themselves. To the average American, it appears that wealth and self-congratulation are the norm for these guys (and "smattering" of gals). After all, while "Main Street" flounders, Wall Street is doing just fine, not in the least because it accepted money from main street taxpayers to bail them out of their self-imposed troubles, all while glibly denying that it was the very government they disdain that saved their smug, shiny asses (See "This American Life" Episode 415: Crybabies).
These guys might believe in Wall Street, after all, there truly is a street named "Wall," but after weighing the evidence, I have decided that the "free market" they tend to extol is a supernatural entity, and I do not believe in it. I do not believe it necessarily selects for quality or in the best interest of the consumer. I do not see any evidence that the free market creates or encourages rational behavior on either the production or consumption side. It seems to me that the "products" these Wall Street guys are creating are not particularly real or of any use to the average consumer (until they fail and crash the entire economy). I don't see this class of individual as creating jobs that are beneficial to America, when considered in proportion to the capital they tie up. It appears that left to their own devices without oversight from an elected government, the lure of massive profits at any cost is too much for most people, and they will do anything to make more money.
I therefore add "The Free Market" to the list of gods in which I do not believe. I hope it enjoys the hazing it gets when it joins Thor, Zeus, and Mammon in the grand ballroom of the subconscious.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Unemployment
Yes, you read that right. I've been laid off. On the bright side, perhaps this means that I will be able to write more.
Right?
Right?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Eat, Pray, Bullshit
It's nice to know that I never have to read the book "Eat, Pray, Love." I know that I never really had to, it's just one of those books that seemed to be everywhere and seemingly everyone has read it. I didn't want to read the book, it just could have been something that happened, like if I ran out of reading material at an airport or relative's house.
Recently, I had to sit through a video of a Ted Talk given by the author of this "big, mega-sensation, international bestseller" memoir that was a "freakish success" (her words). Entitled "Elizabeth Gilbert on nurturing creativity," it starts out fine, I suppose. She talks about how creative professionals such as writers are often asked if they are afraid that they will never have another successful work or never be able to top their one huge hit. Like success has somehow doomed them and their creativity. She talks about the fear-based reaction kids receive when they express a desire to be an artist or writer. She mentions that no one asked her dad, who was a chemical engineer, if he was afraid to be a chemical engineer. She then references the reputation of creative types as being unstable, depressed, drug-addled, and suicidal.
She says that we have collectively accepted and internalized that "creativity and suffering are inherently linked and that artistry, in the end, will always, ultimately, lead to anguish." She wants to ask the audience a question: "Are you cool with this?" She calls the assumption "odious and dangerous, and [she] doesn't want to see it perpetuated into the next century."
Excellent. All of this led me to believe that she was setting us up for a good, solid debunking of that reputation, but oh, no. Nothing could be further from the truth. How does she avoid becoming the assumption? Accept the myth as true, and use it to provide a basis for her belief in supernatural source for creativity. Divorce herself from the responsibility of her creativity. Go to ancient Greece and ancient Rome, when they believed that daemons and genii were responsible for creativity. This "psychological construct" will "protect you from the results of your work" because you don't have to take responsibility for it.
There is no attempt to look at the myth itself and apply any critical thinking skills. There is no attempt to look at empirical evidence that pertains to the myth, though there is some cherry-picking of history offered in support of her belief. She does not say that her dad, the chemical engineer, may not have been asked fear-based questions, but, as a scientist, his profession is number 11 of 13 on at least one list of professionals who commit suicide. (Laborers, carpenters, and doctors are all there, too, and dentists are number one.) She does not mention that it seems to be difficult, if not impossible, to even correlate profession with suicide with any meaningful accuracy.
Spot the things that are wrong with this statement about the rise of rational humanism, the idea of creativity coming from the self and not the divine, and of people being a genius instead of having a genius:
"I gotta tell you, I think that was a huge error. I think that allowing somebody, like one mere person, to believe that he or she is like the vessel, you know like the font, and the essence and the source of all divine, creative, unknowable, eternal mystery is just like a smidge too much responsibility to put on one fragile human psyche. It's like asking somebody to swallow the sun. You know, it just completely warps and distorts egos and creates all these unmanageable expectations about performance, and I think the pressure of that, has been killing off our artists for the last 500 years."
We have suicidal fruit to pick off the tree of creativity because creative people are usually living somewhat public lives, and their deaths make the news. Sometimes, while they are alive, they are talking or writing about their psychic pain. While I have always figured that my petty neurosis and relatively painless middle class upbringing make me unworthy of creative success because of the perpetual myth that creativity equals suffering, I don't think that the myth or my assumption are true, and I certainly don't think that creative people suffer because their creativity has become their responsibility instead of a gift given to them by the poetry faeries.
The kind of thinking that Ms. Gilbert is promoting here isn't doing us any favors. It is upholding a myth instead of debunking it, and it is using a myth to perpetuate yet another myth. Was ever a time in documented human history without plenty of people, probably even a majority, who believe that creativity comes from some sort of divine inspiration, the Enlightenment notwithstanding? What evidence is there that uncovering a mystery has made us worse off as a society? How can divorcing ourselves from responsibility for our powers make the world a better place? Does that mean that any extraordinary power is somehow divine? Why would it just be creativity? What about nefarious powers such as the ability to pull off the perfect crime? That's creative. Is it divine? What about all the other people who commit suicide, some at higher rates than artists? Did they just need to believe in a science faerie or welding faerie, and once they placed their skills into a supernatural being, all their psychic pain would go away?
The Enlightenment did not kill off our artists. Our artists are not dead. Artists are everywhere, many of them not dying by their own hand or even suffering under the hideous responsibility of their brilliance. Furthermore, The Enlightenment gave us the First Amendment, among other things, allowing for not only a flourishing of the creative arts but also of religion in a secular nation.
Anyway, if you made a decision to believe that you are not responsible, are you not still responsible for the fact that you made that decision?
The idea that there are creativity faeries rubbing faerie juice on our projects, makes as much sense to her as anything else she has ever heard to describe the creative process. Yeah, you're right, it does. It's the faeries and their emissions that write poetry. Just because we don't know the answer to a question does not mean that the answer is "Magic." Isn't it a threat to creativity to ask us to just trust some sort of mystical process and not instead ask questions and search for answers?
It's not just creative people who experience maddening blocks in their work. There are times that all of us just can't make connections. Scientists, policy makers, engineers, carpenters, and administrators have moments when something can't be resolved, even though the resolution seems so close. When we do finally figure it out, was it the faeries?
The Greeks thought it was daemons and the Romans thought it was genii because they didn't know any better.
Humans don't behave rationally much of the time. It's work for us to do so, as the brain seems wired to react on emotion. So why would we encourage irrational thinking? And why would we give it a stage?
p.s. I put as much research into this as she probably did:
The 13 careers where you are most likely to commit suicide
The occupation with the highest suicide rate
Physicians Are Not Invincible: Rates of Psychosocial Problems Among Physicians
Veterinarians more likely to commit suicide
Do Dentists have the highest suicide rate?
Suicide by profession: lots of confusion, inconclusive data
Recently, I had to sit through a video of a Ted Talk given by the author of this "big, mega-sensation, international bestseller" memoir that was a "freakish success" (her words). Entitled "Elizabeth Gilbert on nurturing creativity," it starts out fine, I suppose. She talks about how creative professionals such as writers are often asked if they are afraid that they will never have another successful work or never be able to top their one huge hit. Like success has somehow doomed them and their creativity. She talks about the fear-based reaction kids receive when they express a desire to be an artist or writer. She mentions that no one asked her dad, who was a chemical engineer, if he was afraid to be a chemical engineer. She then references the reputation of creative types as being unstable, depressed, drug-addled, and suicidal.
She says that we have collectively accepted and internalized that "creativity and suffering are inherently linked and that artistry, in the end, will always, ultimately, lead to anguish." She wants to ask the audience a question: "Are you cool with this?" She calls the assumption "odious and dangerous, and [she] doesn't want to see it perpetuated into the next century."
Excellent. All of this led me to believe that she was setting us up for a good, solid debunking of that reputation, but oh, no. Nothing could be further from the truth. How does she avoid becoming the assumption? Accept the myth as true, and use it to provide a basis for her belief in supernatural source for creativity. Divorce herself from the responsibility of her creativity. Go to ancient Greece and ancient Rome, when they believed that daemons and genii were responsible for creativity. This "psychological construct" will "protect you from the results of your work" because you don't have to take responsibility for it.
There is no attempt to look at the myth itself and apply any critical thinking skills. There is no attempt to look at empirical evidence that pertains to the myth, though there is some cherry-picking of history offered in support of her belief. She does not say that her dad, the chemical engineer, may not have been asked fear-based questions, but, as a scientist, his profession is number 11 of 13 on at least one list of professionals who commit suicide. (Laborers, carpenters, and doctors are all there, too, and dentists are number one.) She does not mention that it seems to be difficult, if not impossible, to even correlate profession with suicide with any meaningful accuracy.
Spot the things that are wrong with this statement about the rise of rational humanism, the idea of creativity coming from the self and not the divine, and of people being a genius instead of having a genius:
"I gotta tell you, I think that was a huge error. I think that allowing somebody, like one mere person, to believe that he or she is like the vessel, you know like the font, and the essence and the source of all divine, creative, unknowable, eternal mystery is just like a smidge too much responsibility to put on one fragile human psyche. It's like asking somebody to swallow the sun. You know, it just completely warps and distorts egos and creates all these unmanageable expectations about performance, and I think the pressure of that, has been killing off our artists for the last 500 years."
We have suicidal fruit to pick off the tree of creativity because creative people are usually living somewhat public lives, and their deaths make the news. Sometimes, while they are alive, they are talking or writing about their psychic pain. While I have always figured that my petty neurosis and relatively painless middle class upbringing make me unworthy of creative success because of the perpetual myth that creativity equals suffering, I don't think that the myth or my assumption are true, and I certainly don't think that creative people suffer because their creativity has become their responsibility instead of a gift given to them by the poetry faeries.
The kind of thinking that Ms. Gilbert is promoting here isn't doing us any favors. It is upholding a myth instead of debunking it, and it is using a myth to perpetuate yet another myth. Was ever a time in documented human history without plenty of people, probably even a majority, who believe that creativity comes from some sort of divine inspiration, the Enlightenment notwithstanding? What evidence is there that uncovering a mystery has made us worse off as a society? How can divorcing ourselves from responsibility for our powers make the world a better place? Does that mean that any extraordinary power is somehow divine? Why would it just be creativity? What about nefarious powers such as the ability to pull off the perfect crime? That's creative. Is it divine? What about all the other people who commit suicide, some at higher rates than artists? Did they just need to believe in a science faerie or welding faerie, and once they placed their skills into a supernatural being, all their psychic pain would go away?
The Enlightenment did not kill off our artists. Our artists are not dead. Artists are everywhere, many of them not dying by their own hand or even suffering under the hideous responsibility of their brilliance. Furthermore, The Enlightenment gave us the First Amendment, among other things, allowing for not only a flourishing of the creative arts but also of religion in a secular nation.
Anyway, if you made a decision to believe that you are not responsible, are you not still responsible for the fact that you made that decision?
The idea that there are creativity faeries rubbing faerie juice on our projects, makes as much sense to her as anything else she has ever heard to describe the creative process. Yeah, you're right, it does. It's the faeries and their emissions that write poetry. Just because we don't know the answer to a question does not mean that the answer is "Magic." Isn't it a threat to creativity to ask us to just trust some sort of mystical process and not instead ask questions and search for answers?
It's not just creative people who experience maddening blocks in their work. There are times that all of us just can't make connections. Scientists, policy makers, engineers, carpenters, and administrators have moments when something can't be resolved, even though the resolution seems so close. When we do finally figure it out, was it the faeries?
The Greeks thought it was daemons and the Romans thought it was genii because they didn't know any better.
Humans don't behave rationally much of the time. It's work for us to do so, as the brain seems wired to react on emotion. So why would we encourage irrational thinking? And why would we give it a stage?
p.s. I put as much research into this as she probably did:
The 13 careers where you are most likely to commit suicide
The occupation with the highest suicide rate
Physicians Are Not Invincible: Rates of Psychosocial Problems Among Physicians
Veterinarians more likely to commit suicide
Do Dentists have the highest suicide rate?
Suicide by profession: lots of confusion, inconclusive data
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Age of Austerity
Age of Austerity?
This is the term being bandied about in the media.
We are living in a new Age of Austerity.
Get it, America? The party is OVER. No more philandering and hoarding for you. No more giant profits, no more tax breaks. Welcome to the new normal, where everyone has to sacrifice (Right? RIGHT?!).
The Age of Austerity.
Screw that. Most of us are not living in a Wharton novel, and a nice little title that makes this sound sexy and elegant is not going to change that. I guess "Age of Public Austerity, " "Age of Middle Class Austerity?" and "Austerity! Now, with more Poverty!" were not considered, and "Age of Fleecing the 99% in the open, now that America no longer cares about evidence, data, and facts and is convinced that civil servants are the problem" is a bit too long.
This is the term being bandied about in the media.
We are living in a new Age of Austerity.
Get it, America? The party is OVER. No more philandering and hoarding for you. No more giant profits, no more tax breaks. Welcome to the new normal, where everyone has to sacrifice (Right? RIGHT?!).
The Age of Austerity.
Screw that. Most of us are not living in a Wharton novel, and a nice little title that makes this sound sexy and elegant is not going to change that. I guess "Age of Public Austerity, " "Age of Middle Class Austerity?" and "Austerity! Now, with more Poverty!" were not considered, and "Age of Fleecing the 99% in the open, now that America no longer cares about evidence, data, and facts and is convinced that civil servants are the problem" is a bit too long.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
School Votes
Voters approve 70% of all school referenda; many raise own taxes
Can we set up a comparison to provide data on what happens to schools who got a "yes" and schools who got a "no"?Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Minnesota Legacy Fund & the Minnesota Vikings
Dear Minnesota Lawmakers,
The voters approved the Legacy Fund to "protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater."
It is beyond a stretch to think that a private corporation such as the Minnesota Vikings could be included in this definition.
It would be a violation of the amendment, as approved by voters, to divert funds to a project that will benefit a small sector of the population.
It is furthermore a violation of the public trust to be diverting any public money to private interests such as sports franchises.
If you want to waste public money on a stadium, let the voters weigh-in.
Sincerely,
-kitty
Minnesota Legacy Fund
Minnesota Historical Society's page to take action
Art Rolnick MPR op-ed on Early Childhood Education or Stadium
The voters approved the Legacy Fund to "protect drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve arts and cultural heritage; to support parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater."
It is beyond a stretch to think that a private corporation such as the Minnesota Vikings could be included in this definition.
It would be a violation of the amendment, as approved by voters, to divert funds to a project that will benefit a small sector of the population.
It is furthermore a violation of the public trust to be diverting any public money to private interests such as sports franchises.
If you want to waste public money on a stadium, let the voters weigh-in.
Sincerely,
-kitty
Minnesota Legacy Fund
Minnesota Historical Society's page to take action
Art Rolnick MPR op-ed on Early Childhood Education or Stadium
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)