Thoughts on Envy, Unions, and the Social Safety Net

This week last year, state workers in Wisconsin began occupying the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison to protest budget cuts and the all-out assault on union collective bargaining rights perpetuated by Governor Scott Walker and his Koch Bros corporate owners.  While union bargaining rights, as well as the wages and benefits afforded to union members, have been in the national discourse for decades, the severity of what Walker was doing to workers and the state as a whole, and the subsequent massive reaction to those measures, created a new discussion:  Why should unions have so much power over the wages of their employees?  Is collective bargaining fair to employers?  Why should union workers get such good medical benefits and pensions, when non-union workers around the country are having their wages and benefits slashed so drastically?  Even if labor unions "make sense," does it makes sense for those benefits to be afforded to government workers?  Aren't they somehow different?

Similar arguments are made about people using any part of our rapidly dwindling social safety net: Why should those people get to live off of me?  I work hard, and they should, too!  Those bums should just get a job (in this economy!).  It's not fair that they get to have all this money for food and help with rent and their utilities, and I work my ass off every day and have to shop at Wal-Mart and Aldi!  I saw this one guy use his EBT card and then get into a car that looked more expensive than mine, and he used a cell phone!  They shouldn't have those luxuries while they live off MY tax dollars!  They should be forced to sell everything of value before they qualify for anything!

What it sounds like to me is that the people most likely to complain about the very institutions and programs that exist to help people who are in rough situations are acting primarily out of envy.  It's not fair!! is a commonly-cited reason for opposing such things as welfare and union benefits.  What I think we're missing -- aside from, of course, a well-educated and critically-thinking population that isn't spoon-fed by corporate media, circus politics, and religious dogma -- is that we're placing the blame on the wrong group of people.  Why blame union members for their good benefits and pension plans, and their contractual ability to bargain for fair and livable wages?  If the problem you have with those benefits is that you don't also receive them and must scrape by as a result, then the appropriate target for such anger would be your own employer, who refuses to compensate you adequately for your labor.  The appropriate target for your anger about not being able to afford decent food and your rent or mortgage would not be those who are benefiting from government programs that exist to help people, but the system that allows you -- a presumably hard-working and self-sacrificing person, if one were to believe what you say amid your unceasing complaints about the so-called dredges of society -- to fall through the cracks, and the institutions and corporations who are benefiting from the budget cuts, wage cuts, and austerity measures imposed that are the direct cause of your economic downward spiral.  

A society based on greed and envy doesn't work for anyone, and neither does misdirecting blame when we're upset about an apparent injustice.  We need to think critically before judging the circumstances and motivations of people we've never met, whose shoes we haven't walked in, and whose lives are seemingly different from ours.  As Warren aptly notes:

I think about the two different ways political scientists conduct statistical polling for political contests. What we most often see on TV are the general preliminary polls that give us a rough notion of who's winning or losing the race overall. Then we see the more specific demographic stats done after voting is completed, commonly known as exit-polling. With the latter, the focus is on demographics, details that inform the candidates about who is voting for them based on age, gender, political leanings, race, etc.  The former is based on opinion only.

What I'd like to see us begin to do is to work on that second evaluation.  To judge others not based on the biases and stereotypes inherent to our own lives, but based on listening to their opinions first and our own second should be our collective aim.  Taking such action could seriously effect our long term evolution; a world where we would think before we act and consider others viewpoints whilst determining our own. After all, there is no one answer to decide how we should live our lives - there are millions of ways.  But if we choose to live only that life we were told or raised to inhabit, then we are limiting not only our own horizons, but also those that we love, those we share this earth with and those we want to see succeed as much as ourselves. 

If you see an economically disadvantaged person who seems to "have it better" than you do, or a person with a job that actually provides a decent wage, benefits, and a pension or retirement plan while you have none of these benefits, desiring for their standard of living to decrease is illogical and, if implemented, only further benefits the institutions and corporations that make your situation so difficult in the first place.  Fighting a symptom is never as effective as eliminating the cause of the problem.

Video of the Day - They're baaaaaaack

Wisconsinites have taken, en masse, to the State Capitol again:

Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.

The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge. 

The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices - Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.

I've got my fingers crossed for the recall efforts.

Songs about working

In light of depressing stuff.





























To sum it up:


And finally:


And what to do when you're just fed up with it all.

Miguel v. Marcotte feat. Steve Buscemi, in "Nice Guys," Part Deux

So, there was that whole "Nice Guy" shitstorm a month ago.  Miguel Bloomfontosis, the unintentional starter of said shitstorm, brought it back the other day with this hilarious fake dialog about his disagreements with Amanda Marcotte between himself, Marcotte, and Steve Buscemi:

Miguel:  I never said “women prefer assholes” and I never said “confident men who get laid are assholes.”  I said young women overvalue social dominance and an entitled attitude.  And overvalue is not the same thing as “only value.” And yeah, sure, all things being equal, a woman is going to prefer a man who’s nice over an asshole.  But all things are rarely equal, and when a woman overvalues social dominance…

Amanda Marcotte:  Confidence, Miguel, you’re talking about confidence.

Miguel:  Actually, I think “social dominance” entails a degree of aggression that goes beyond “confidence”… but if you want to call it “confidence,” fine.  If a woman overvalues “confidence,” then she’s going to be more receptive to “assholes” than to genuinely nice men who happen to be a little bit shy.  And sure, there are a lot of confident men who are also nice, and if Matt Damon gets to fuck… uh…

Steve Buscemi:  Sarah Silberman?

Miguel:  Yeah, her.  If she’s fucking Matt Damon then bully for him.  But there are a lot ofother “confident” men who aren’t particularly nice, and…

Amanda Marcotte:  But that’s up to her, Miguel.  If she wants to make shitty choices in who she dates, and “overvalue” confidence, or “social dominance,” or whatever, that’s her fucking choice.

Steve Buscemi:  She’s got a point, Miguel.  Her fuckin’ choice.

Buscemi being included is just a riot, with his strange interjections and joint-lighting.  Miguel turned Amanda into this sort of bar hag/intellectual hybrid caricature, which, as a completely neutral party who enjoys reading both of their blogs, I found to be quite funny.  I actually can't imagine Marcotte not laughing at this dialog.

Definitely worth reading the whole thing.

Some Stuff, open thread

• Firstly, Sam Keenan, the artist responsible for the adorable little forked baby up there, is currently participating in Song A Day 2011.  Song A Day is a loose sort of event where musicians commit to writing and recording one song per day for one month.  Sort of like Nanowrimo, or Nablopomo, but with music.  It's pretty rad what people can manage to do in one day (my husband has done it in the past, too; check out his MySpace page for a bunch of his past Song A Days, most from 2008).  Check it out!  The player is at the bottom of the website.  Also, check out the song Super Penguin to hear a guest appearance by Sam's son.

• Amanda Marcotte has an interesting take on the recent study that reports that most American Catholics disagree with the Catholic Church on a number of contentious issues.  I largely agree with her, but am a little shruggy on the following:

Not that I’m letting Catholics off the hook.  If you disagree with the church, you really should leave as a moral matter.  Money and esteem given to the church allows them perpetuate their evil on the world.  That money and power goes towards depriving women of choices, oppressing gays, spreading HIV by limiting access to condoms, and whatever else they do that you disapprove of.  

It's definitely true that cutting off your support for the Church will lessen the money and power that the Church uses for regressive and bigoted things.  On the other hand, I think there's a lot to be said for Catholics who are actively engaging their churches and leadership for more progressive policies.  Abandoning the institution is one solution, sure; but so is changing it from within.  After all, feminism certainly has its share of bad history, but we aren't abandoning it left and right because the movement's goals and ideals have shifted considerably, and people within the movement are actively trying to be more inclusive, among other things.

• See how susceptible you are to mind control tactics:

• I also accidentally deleted my old Tumblr that I never updated.  How does one accidentally delete a Tumblr account, you ask?  Well, I had one called Choreographix, with a sub account called Minneapix, where I intended to post old photos I have taken around Minneapolis through the years, mostly concert pictures, because that was my "thing" for a while.  I thought I was deleting that one, but wound up deleting Choreographix.  So I just made a new one, with my name as the title instead, where I post pictures.. of concerts, buildings, protest rallies, me, whatever.  You can find it here.  I just remembered that photography is fun. Yay!  

• Also, new and interesting ways to upgrade your ramen noodles!  Like this "Ramepherd's Pie," which I need to make immediately:

• Oh!  And this is a riot.  So, this guy went to India for a while, and... well, he says this:

I went away for India for 6 months last autumn. Whilst I was away one of my best mates was living in my flat looking after it for me. When I got back from the airport last week there was a note on my coffee table to press play on the Playstation and this video came on the TV.. Pretty awesome, though I did feel slightly violated by what happens at about 1m30 and that might be a bit NSFW

Hilarious.

So... what's new?

Wisconsin: the fight isn't over yet

Cross-posted at Feministe. 

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to join a couple friends for a short road trip to Madison, Wisconsin for the rally against Walker’s assault on workers’ rights on March 12, and to welcome back the 14 Democratic State legislators, who fled to Illinois in an attempt to stop the assault on workers’ rights by denying the legislature the required quorum needed to vote on the bill that was sure to pass due to the newly-elected Republican majority.  The turnout at the rally was huge.  And while I’m used to so-called “Minnesota Nice” (read: passive-aggression), never before have I encountered such a kind andhappy group of incredibly angry people.  And I can understand; it was hard to wipe the giant grin off of my own face while I was there.  The sheer number of people coming together, people of all ages, from all walks of life, and from several surrounding states was overwhelming and brought tears to my eyes.  I’m normally the kinda gal who keeps to herself in public, but I couldn’t help but look up and smile, wave, or say hello to fellow protesters and passers-by around me.  While it was my first time in Madison, I’ve never felt more at home.

Wisconsin was the first state in the US to provide collective bargaining rights to public employees, back in 1959, so it should come as no surprise that they are among the loudest to fight for their right to keep those very rights.  And even though the 14 Democrats and the State workers didn’t win this battle (although, keep your ears peeled, as the method used to pass the modified legislation was likely illegal), the war wages on in the Midwest– the heart of working class America.  Not only are there similar labor-busting battles waging in Ohio, Indiana, and other states, Michigan governor Rick Snyder has managed to quietly get passed several pieces of dangerous legislation that will essentially allow Michigan cities and towns to be completely taken over by corporations, should they be declared to be in a state of fiscal emergency.  Rachel Maddow discussed this on her show last Tuesday:

“Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget in Michigan is expected to cut aid to cities and towns so much that a lot of cities and towns in Michigan are expected to be in dire financial straits. Right now, Gov. Snyder is pushing a bill that would give himself, Gov. Snyder and his administration, the power to declare any town or school district to be in a financial emergency. If a town was declared by the governor and his administration to be in a financial emergency they would get to put somebody in charge of that town, and they want to give that emergency manager that they just put in charge of the town the power to, “reject, modify, or terminate any contracts that the town may have entered in to, including any collective bargaining agreements.” 

“This emergency person also gets the power under the bill to suspend or dismiss elected officials. Think about that for a second. Doesn’t matter who you voted for in Michigan. Doesn’t matter who you elected. Your elected local government can be dismissed at will. The emergency person sent in by the Rick Snyder administration could recommend that a school district be absorbed into another school district. That emergency person is also granted power specifically to disincorporate or dissolve entire city governments.”

Make no mistake about it; not only is the GOP engaged in a full-on assault on women’s rights, they’re wasting no time coming after everyone else, too.  And who better to start with than the only hope the Democratic party has left since the Citizens United ruling: unions.

Because no matter how many Republicans and well-meaning Democrats and even self-identified progressives want to complain about how unions are run, corruption within them, or their supposed incompetence, the fact is, as long as we remain in a system where workers and employers have competing goals, we need unions.  And frankly, with reports coming out every week about how corporate profits and productivity are up and private sector hiring remains stagnant, I’m sick and tired of hearing about how much more money public sector employees make compared to their private sector counterparts (see this article in the NYT for a good analysis), and how union employees’ striking over better working conditions and health care greedy and lazy.  It’s time we flip the dialog, and instead of getting angry that public sector employees are actually being treated decently, let’s ask private sector employers why they refuse to show their employees the same respect.

One thing that these protests and the other various State capitol occupations is proving is that, even if we don’t win every individual battle, we’re remembering how important it is for us to actually get out and fight, as presently as possible.  Until now, I’d forgotten that the Capitol is a public building.  I’d forgotten that it is my right to peacefully protest and petition my government.  I’d forgotten that I can do more than send over an electronic petition to my Congressman who probably won’t read it (although, online petitions and other “virtual” actions are certainly useful).  It’s as if, until now, since the massive protests in the Middle East began and spread in various forms to the US and elsewhere, that we progressives in the United States have forgotten that democracy and fighting for the rights of marginalized people is messy work, and tiring work.  And we’ve forgotten that it’s often more worthwhile to get out and do it in person if we can, where they can’t ignore us.

It’s well-known that the most apathetic non-voters here in the US are probably more aligned with the left than the right.  And, obviously, the right continues to bank on that every election season.  But getting out to vote?  It’s only one piece of the larger puzzle.  We have to keep being loud, and present.  Don’t forget that our various State capitol building are ourhouses.  And the streets surrounding it are our streets.  And our elected officials are our employees, because it’s our job to hire and fire them.  When it comes to politics in the United States, I’m not usually very optimistic.  But, right now, since the demonstrations in Egypt and through my trip to Madison, I feel very confident that we’re finally waking up, and that we might start seeing some real progressive change in the coming years.  Just so long as we keep on fighting!

Keep an eye on your state legislators.  You know where to go!

Some pictures.

I'd like to see that movie, please

Adorable

Left must be left!

Favorite sign of the rally

My fellow feminist road-tripping democracy-fighters and me!

More to come when I get back home tomorrow.

Shame.

So, I go to dinner with Jesse, all leisurely-like and happy, where I have a good calzone, try an interesting new beer, and then get home and settle in to take an online American Government test, check Facebook, and--- WHAT?!!  Wisconsin Republicans found a way to push through their bill on collective bargaining without the missing Democrats?!

Ezra Klein on what happened:

Here’s what just happened in Wisconsin: the rules of the state’s Senate require a quorum for any measures that spend money. That’s how the absence of the Senate’s Democrats could stymie Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget law -- it spent money, and thus it needed a quorum.

But in a surprise move earlier today, Wisconsin’s Senate Republicans rewrote the bill and left out all the parts that spent money. Then they quickly convened and passed the new law, which included the provisions stripping most public-employee unions of their collective bargaining rights but excluding everything in the law that spent money.

I will be in Madison Saturday.  Expect a lot of Tweets (@AprilStreich) and photos of the certain rage to come.

Watch the UpTake's live footage from the state capital here:

Watch live streaming video from theuptake at livestream.com

Your pets are stealing your identity.

There's this trend around the feminist blogosphere where people get writer's block and attempt curing it by writing about how everything from marriage to mousepads are tools (or remnants) of patriarchy.  Amanda Marcotte dug up an older one of these gems today from Slate's Double X: the kid-as-Mom's-Facebook-picture trend.  Says Katie Roiphe of these women: 

Many of these women work. Many of them are in book clubs. Many of them are involved in causes. But this is how they choose to represent themselves. The choice may seem trivial, but the whole idea behind Facebook is to create a social persona, an image of who you are projected into hundreds of bedrooms and cafes and offices across the country. Why would that image be of someone else, however closely bound they are to your life, genetically and otherwise? The choice seems to constitute a retreat to an older form of identity, to a time when women were called Mrs. John Smith, to a time when fresh scrubbed Vassar girls were losing their minds amidst vacuum cleaners and sandboxes. Which is not to say that I don’t understand the temptation to put a photograph of your beautiful child on Facebook, because I do. After all, it frees you of the burden of looking halfway decent for a picture, and of the whole excruciating business of being yourself. Your 3-year-old likes being in front of the camera. But still.

As a non-parent, it is difficult for me to weigh in on this trend and its perceived causes.  I also find it annoying when avowed child-free people write about the intricacies of parenthood and "what's wrong with mothers these days," but clearly, that trend isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  I know plenty of mothers who use their kids' picture as their Facebook profile picture, and I assure you, they all manage to remain fully independent, unique people-- they're just the kind of fully independent, unique people who are obsessed with how perfect and amazing their kids are.  Annoying?  To some people, sure.  Patriarchal and sexist?  Uhh... no.  Not really.  And especially not when compared to the shockingly still-ever-present practice of calling individual married women Mrs. His Name: 

Just as in the past and to an extent today, women are expected to show their love for their male partners by erasing their own identities and replacing them with his---going from Ms. My Name to Mrs. His Name---now there seems to be increasing pressure for women to “prove” they love their children through self-abasement. 

As a feminist married woman, I'm tempted to throw heavy, sharp objects at anyone who dares to refer to me as Mrs Husband's Full Name rather than Ms My Own Fucking Name.  I get upset.  I already get upset when people simply call me Mrs. His Original Last Name, because we are both Mr and Ms Our Hyphenated Last Names, dammit.  But your baby's picture?  As your main Facebook image?  As a reminder of sexist, patriarchal traditions?  Come on now.  That's a little... reaching, don't you think?  I mean, sure; for some women, their kids are their entire identities, and that's pretty depressing.  But is it really evidence of a trend?  And such a gendered and damaging one, at that?  I don't think so.  

As far as dangerous and threatening Facebook profile picture trends are concerned, I'm much more interested in the trend of using pictures of one's pets to represent them.  Just look at these friends of mine, all of whom were once completely intelligent, unique, independent men and women, before they got those attention- and identity-stealing dogs and cats.  Apparently, they have all thrown away years of education and experience by using these photos to represent who they are.

Our mom and dad used to be smart,
fun people... till we came along and
stole their identities!

I'm Delores, and I'm more important
than my dads.

Hi, this photo's prominent
 placement invalidates
my mom's math degree

You may have thought my mom was
a good photographer with a passion
for rescuing animals and
making me clothes, but UR RONG,
this picture renders her invisible!

I'm not sure what my dad does,
but it doesn't matter anymore,
because I'm his profile pic!

  

Curious, I looked through my Facebook friends' profile pics to see just how many of them actually did choose to put up picture of their children instead of themselves.  Of all 234 people, I came up with four.  Two of them are men.  Where are the articles about them losing their identities to their children's?  There are more pictures of my friends' domesticated animals in my Facebook news feed than there are of their children.  And I'm friends with a lot of parents.  A lot of parents with pets, even.  And I'm also friends with a lot of their actual pets, since they are all the type to create Facebook pages for their pets.

What represents a person on sites with avatars and user pics is clearly not only pictures of the person themselves.  It's pictures of them with their friends, family, dog, significant other, or other person, and it's also frequently other things, like cartoon images, a phrase or slogan, a baby, a dog, a cat, a building, a hamburger, or any number of other things.  If it's a part of someone's life, it can be used to represent them.  This complaint is really just snarky, more than it is insightful.

Sensitivities in discussing food ethics

Good food

There's some criticism floating around in response to food writer Mark Bittman's recent article about McDonald's surprisingly unhealthy oatmeal, and his frustration with Americans' collective obsession with "convenience foods."  The criticisms I've read were written by fans of his, but it's the comments in Amanda Marcotte's post that I'm interested in discussing.  As is wont to happen in the progressive blogosphere, commenters are critical of the seemingly condescending tone used by "elite" food writers like Bittman, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Amanda herself.  Some of the complaints that crop up in response to articles like these are valid, like the ones in response to commentary like, "I can't believe parents would feed their kids boxed macaroni.  Don't they know that has yellow number 9?!" without giving consideration to what their circumstances may be that led those parents to the decision to make boxed macaroni for lunch or a microwavable chicken pot pie for dinner.  Or the well-intentioned "you know, you can really eat healthfully for really cheap.  The farmer's market, which is open on Thursdays and Sundays is cheaper than the grocery store and even supports local farmers!!, but you have to get there before 2, and bring cash.  And there are plenty of cheap items that you can make that are nutritious and filling, it only takes an hour or so each night so prepare."

I'm of the opinion that Americans in general should like to spend that much time preparing meals to share with family and friends, and that it should be an activity that everyone involved participates in, but that's an ideal, not a reality.  We can try to shift our collective understanding of the role of foods in our lives.  And we can do that while also making sure to remember that, for many working families -- the very ones we root for when we think of the Wisconsin and Indiana protests, and the ones we are on the side of when we consider the importance of a social safety net and programs like WIC -- that extra hour, or those hours and requirements for using more eco-friendly, locally-supportive, less-expensive options, are worth a lot more than others might initially assume.

Some of Amanda's commenters have a problem with Bittman's biting condescension; specifically, where Bittman lays out the following:

Since we know there are barely any rules governing promotion of foods, one might wonder how this compares to real oatmeal, besides being 10 times as expensive. Some will say that it tastes better, but that’s because they’re addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.

 Alysia says, 

 I just think it something that needs to be acknowledged when righting such an article rather than the sort of “OH MY FUCKING GOD YOUR ARE SO DUMB YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW HOT TO LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE BECAUSE THIS IS EASIER THAN WHAT YOUR ARE DOING NOW YOU DUMBASS” sort of tone of the article. I just started reading the times because it is one of a few websites I can read at work. I had never read anything by this guy before this article and I thought he made a lot of good points but it just dripped with such condescension.

I agree, to an extent; the article does have a snarkier tone to it that I'm not used to reading (or hearing) by Bittman, although I haven't been familiar with him for very long.  But to me, it reads less as condescension and more as a general frustration with the system that creates this ignorance and fabricated need for extremely sweet, extremely "convenient" foods.  Bittman has proven his understanding of the underlying causes of poor nutrition in America (see the TED Talk below), and the obstacles that marginalized (and even not-so-marginalized people, lately) face in eating healthy, nutritionally-balanced foods in sufficient quantities.  He clearly speaks from a place of privilege, because while he may not have a luxurious kitchen to prepare all of his nutritious and well-documented minimalist meals, he does have the means, and the time, to adhere to his own food philosophy.  But even given that, he's not proven himself to be too out of touch to speak for the collective American population when it comes to food, its importance, and our relationship to it.

Amanda is similarly well-versed in the underlying causes of the Western food problem.  While I imagine that if she weren't such a high-profile writer, she'd let herself be a whole lot snarkier than she is when it comes to issues surrounding food, she does tend to remember that her audience doesn't consist entirely of New York-based foodies who have the luxury of being able to join a CSA and have the time to blog about it every week, among other things.  Which is why it's irritating to see more knee-jerk reactions from commenters who assume she's talking down to people who don't, or can't, eat like her.  Because while Amanda doesn't say anything in her response to Bittman's post alluding to a disdain or lack of compassion for people who are unable to follow hers and Bittman's similar food philosophies, some people are responding to her as though she did.  As kristin says, 

It’s kind of funny to me that Amanda can be so on point about valuing the labor women are expected to do, and then turn around and forget entirely about how that extra labor might make the work of getting breakfast into everyone a bit harder. Maybe because she doesn’t have the additional labor of caring for kids. That REALLY makes a difference in how easy it is to get meals on the table from scratch.

Bad food
(via.)

I don't mean to single out kristin; the content of her comments, though, are incredibly common in this context, and oftentimes, the person making the comment is jumping to unfair conclusions.  While Amanda let some snark through when she echoed Bittman's assertion that our collective addiction to extraordinarily and artificially sweet foods has dulled our ability to taste the satisfying sweetness in real foods, kristin couldn't see past the frustration Amanda and Bittman were expressing with the consequences of the corporate-sponsored food system in America to the real point, which is what people like her have eased themselves away from.  While it's important to remember that many people are unable to change their diets to the ideal put forth by Bittman, Marcotte, and other food-focused writers and activists, it is also important to recognize that the people talking about it right now have made actually made the difficult transition from traditional, consumer-based Western eating toward more wholesome, healthy, deliberate eating, and understand each side pretty well.  A frustration doesn't necessarily indicate an unfair bias or a dismissively "privileged" perspective.  What Bittman was asserting is both scientifically supported, and intuitively true: that we've collectively desensitized our tastebuds to nutritionally-acceptable levels of sweetness and fat- and carb-satisfaction with heavily-processed, over-produced junk.  Of course an orange won't taste as satisfying as a Little Debbie's brownie, when you're not used to using an orange to satisfy your sweet tooth.  And that's not personal; anyone in Western society is susceptible, obviously, and the people who speak out against our current food system usually haven't been eating so healthfully their entire lives. It's not made up, and it's not being used as a vehicle to shame people who can't afford healthy foods, or don't have sufficient time to prepare them.

I think, ultimately, we need to remember that there is a clear difference between complaining about the people who remain deliberately ignorant of the food system in the Unites States, and hollering at the mother of three small kids behind you in the grocery store line about how she should feed her kids oatmeal instead of the sugary cereal in her cart.  The former is lamenting about the negative impacts of a recent trend, while the latter is personally attacking an individual over a choice over which they may have little control.  It shouldn't be too hard to tell the difference.

This is what democracy looks like

As you've already probably heard, today, nearly all of Indiana's Senate Democrats have followed the Wisconsin 14's lead and jumped ship, probably off to Illinois, the apparent safe haven for the Midwest's MIA Democratic lawmakers.  The cause of the Democrats' disappearing act is similar to Wisconsin's -- opposition to a bill that, if passed (which it is expected to, as both Indiana's House and Senate are majority Republican),  will effectively eliminate certain union bargaining rights:

Today’s fight was triggered by Republicans pushing a bill that would bar unions and companies from negotiating a contract that requires non-union members to kick-in fees for representation. It’s become the latest in what is becoming a national fight over Republican attempts to eliminate or limit collective bargaining.

Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, actually opposes the legislation, and has asked GOP leaders to drop it, with no success.  Not only does he oppose the legislation, but he also doesn't plan to send Indiana state troopers out to find the missing lawmakers, but he is fully in support of their decision:

“The activities of today are perfectly legitimate part of the process,” he said. “Even the smallest minority, and that’s what we’ve heard from in the last couple days, has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who did.”

The Wisconsin 14, meanwhile, are still assumed to be in Wisconsin, while Governor Walker attempts to lure them back home with threats to basically cancel their direct deposit, forcing them to collect their wages in person, from the House Majority Leader.  They're also planning to push ahead a vote on requiring voters to show photo ID in order to be eligible to vote, which Democrats are strongly opposed to, in the hopes that they will return to attempt fighting its passage.

This, of course, comes just at the heels of another recent development: the fact that Wisconsin Governor Walker plans to sell Wisconsin's infrastructure to the Koch Brothers:

Walker’s bill would allow state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants to be sold to private investors. As if that weren’t bad enough — selling off our public wealth as a short-term budget fix — the bill would also allow the sale to be made without competitive bidding. In other words, Wisconsin’s infrastructure will be sold directly to the Koch Brothers at bargain-basement prices.

Is there anyone left who isn't mad about this yet?  If these measures, and the larger trends of union-busting, are allowed to pass, the outlook is bleak.  As Warren notes, 

It’s a circle of deception for the American middle-class and intends to further add to the ridiculous discrepancy between the top 1% and the rest of us who work for them… soon with no ability or rights to demand living wages.  If they are not stopped by the workers (especially those very folks who claim these people represent them) then I fear a return to the dark ages of labor, such as the Industrial Age of the 1890's, where we serve the almighty dollar which will have been completely wrangled and imprisoned by the richest ever to walk the earth.

While the protests over proposed anti-worker legislation in Wisconsin and Indiana aren't directly comparable to what's happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and other countries abroad, the ongoing fights for freedom and democracy in the Middle East have clearly motivated us in other parts of the world to reconsider what we think we know about our governments, our leaders, and our ways of life.  I wrote the other day that I believe that the Wisconsin protests are important because of the threat that union-busting will have on the Democratic party's future success, but I think it's also important to consider this to be a wake-up call, and a call to continued action for those of us who advocate for the rights of the common person, the common worker, the poor, and the marginalized, everywhere.  

We don't know yet how things will pan out in Wisconsin, or in Indiana.  We don't know yet whether or not  the efforts of the Democrats who fled their home states as a last-ditch attempt to protect their states' workers' rights will be in vain.  We do know, though, that people joining together, willing to get loud and demand their rights, has worked in the past, still works today, and, if we keep at it, will continue to work in the future.  And we do know, too, that state legislators have successfully gotten unfair and damaging legislation dropped as a result of fleeing their states in past attempts.  What we need to remember is that we can keep doing this.  This is what democracy looks like!  This is what it looks like when working people realize that they have been placated and lied to long enough, and they've woken up to hold accountable those who are responsible.  

Important to remember are the wider implications of what's going on; seeing the forest, rather than the trees, to borrow from an over-used cliche.  What's most important is that we  keep letting those in power know that we will no longer allow them get away with making millions on the backs of their hardest-working citizens without adequate compensation and safety; we will no longer allow them to get away with profiting off of our planet's destruction; we will no longer allow them to get away with lying to us and taking advantage of our fears in order to push through their destructive agendas that will hurt us most in the end.  The fight isn't just on behalf of the country's low-level government employees, or its union workers; it's on behalf of every single person in this country who works full-time and is still living below the poverty line, for those who lack good health insurance, for those who are not in the upper income brackets of the elite few.  It's for the rest of us, who are finally fed up with empty promises and leaving our fates up to the whims of corporate America and Big Business interests.  It's about real democracy, which is us. 

People think that Americans are too sheltered, too coddled, so blind to the realities of the rest of the world, and what a "struggle" really is.  Or that, if Egyptians were Democrats, there wouldn't have even been a revolution in Egypt.  I think that this is a good point.  And, for as much as we like to believe what we keep hearing (it is easier), the Unites States is absolutely not the best at everything; in fact, we're really bad at a whole lot of really important things.  We have a lot to work on, and it's about time that we finally start realizing that.

For those of us falling on the left of the political spectrum, I think our future success from now forward depends on how we continue to respond to similar threats to average, hardworking Americans, and how willing we are to keep fighting, LOUDLY, and PRESENTLY.  This is what's important. It feels so inspiring because it is.  We liberals don't tend to fight all that loudly; we're more apt to blog furiously, or try to otherwise peaceably work it out... at least, that's how we're stereotyped to handle these conflicts.  And I think this is both because and why we consistently don't win.  We aren't as organized, and sometimes, it's true: sometimes we don't fight hard enough.  And this is our proof that we can actually do it, the motivation we need to finally win:  Speak Up.  Be Loud.  Get Heard.  They have to listen.  


...And finally, FUCKING VOTE.  It's probably safe to say that the majority of lazy slackers who are too apathetic to walk down the block and just fucking vote hold typically progressive/liberal views, and would have voted Democrat, if they'd bothered to get to the polls and maybe spend an hour or two listening to their local NPR member station or reading a page or two of their local newspaper to get basic information about the main candidates.  


Look, the right-wing counts on this happening.  We know this.  Let's stop living in that world where we pretend that's an unlikely conspiracy theory, and get with it.  They know that the majority of the country doesn't feel the way that they do, because the people whom their policies benefit make up a very, very small minority.  If they had to tell the truth and allow voters to make their decisions based on real information, they would never win.  Because they are a band of greedy fucks who care not about anything but their bank accounts and the bank accounts of their most valuable campaign contributors.  They know that they wouldn't be in office, fucking up everything for the rest of us while they make even more money, year after year after year, if you fuckers got off your Play Stations and spent half a second helping the rest of us make sure that doesn't happen.  So in 2012: I BEST SEE YOU OUT THERE.  It's literally up to you now, slackers.  We know you're on board; just put down the bong and get out there.

Democracy is within our reach.  Real protection for the working class is in our reach.  Let's keep up the momentum!  We're the ones who believe in the rights of marginalized people, who promote equality and free will; this is the time to stand up and make sure it happens.

And just try to watch and hear a minute of this without getting chills or tearing up:

Wisconsin, democracy, the Midwest, and truth

Rachel Maddow discussed the importance of the Wisconsin protests on her show the other night.  I agree with her general sentiment that what is in peril right now is the success of the Democratic party as a whole, considering the transparent attempt to eradicate unions, or, at minimum, their sizable political influence, which overwhelmingly helps the Democratic party. 

More specifically, though, the protests in Wisconsin are important because they are occurring in the Midwest, the part of the United States known typically for its stalwart conservative viewpoints-- even though that's not necessarily how we all vote, particularly in the larger Midwestern cities like Minneapolis and Chicago.  Consequently, the fact that so many of the more extreme attacks on women, personal freedoms, the environment, unions, and scores of other things progressives (and, it seems, humans) find most important are coming from State legislators from Midwestern states, the uprising in Wisconsin is unexpected-- and inspiring.

Midwestern values are mostly what you'd expect: the importance of family, down-home values of kindness, respect, and avoidance of conflict at nearly all costs; strong ties to community and neighborly kindness; and keeping our noses out of everyone's business, and all the drama.  As a result, we enjoy a sort of quiet, more intimate community existence, which most consider to be incompatible with loud, in-your-face political protesting and grassroots political change... coming from the left!

So, here are the Midwesterners, letting the rest of the country know that no matter what you think of "Flyover Country," we're not going to let our guard down.  We're not going to stand by as corporate interests and lobbyists want to take away our basic rights and our abilities to fight for them.  We're not going to sit idly by as the far-right attempts, once again, to regress the entire country into a place where individuals have to fight tooth and nail just to get by, while watching our wealthier, business-owning neighbors pollute the land we love and work for, take away our basic rights to fight for our own interests, and oppress everyone in the name of the almighty dollar, while responding to complaints with tired calls to simply pull up one's bootstraps.  We're waking up, and realizing that the popular saying is true: that you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you can't afford boots.  

Whether or not you agree with the protesters, MIA legislators, and state workers in Wisconsin, it can't be denied that the protests are a key indicator that citizens all over the world, including here in the USA, are tired of what has amounted to a rather pretend version of the democracy that we hold so dear to ourselves as Americans, that we try to justify foreign wars with, that we claim to want to "spread" all over the world.  "Democracy" was, and still is, anover-used and nearly meaningless term used to remind us placate us with the false assurance that, here in America, we are morally superior to other countries in that we give our citizens the power to control our nation.  Well, we've woken up.  While our collective oppression cannot be compared completely with that of the countries in the Middle East who are fighting for their basic rights, we exist on the same spectrum of humans who are fed up with the few at the top making billions on the backs of the rest of us, denying us basic rights, having our humanity up for vote every couple years.  We're starting to really understand that we are, in fact, voiceless, and that if we want to get anything done, we need to rely on ourselves to show those in power how important it is, and that we will not take it anymore.  I agree with Warren, who sums up our current political climate thusly:

I've found I'm less about the institutions, the positions and the protocol of our system and more about the individual needs of the people that are supposed to be served by them.  Too often today our needs as a people are being supplanted by the demands of corporations, the lobbyists that serve them, the politicians that beg for their support in order to run campaigns, then the often lack-luster results that come from most all of our political leaders platforms being compromised by the influence of dollars.  

Anyone who is interested in change, anyone who is interested in restoring democracy, anyone who is fed up with continually being lied to by all parties involved, needs to use this opportunity, this giant wave of inspiration, this completely basic utilization of our First Amendment rights, and speak out.  We want TRUTH, and we want our voices heard, finally.  We need our basic rights respected.  And we should not settle for less.  Let's ride the wave of this momentum and really make the change we're continually saying we want.  Stand up and yell!  Sometimes, you just have to be loud.  And the other side has been louder than us for far too long.

Yell!  Like this guy:

People need to hear it, and know that we will no longer be the half of this two-party bullshit system that is too apathetic to get loud. Vote, yell, protest, and make your opinion heard!  Let the otherwise-quiet Midwest be your guide.