Trying to drain my swamp, and have a cookie.

It has been a struggle to form coherent and meaningful ideas in my head these days. This is my swamp – filled with Twitter hashtags, Facebook feeds, editorials, vitriol, Trump’s transition team. Perhaps, with a president elect who communicates through disingenuous and poorly formed ideas in 140 characters or less, this will be okay – perhaps an inability to effectively communicate is part of the “new normal” I keep hearing about.

Fnding time and space to allow my thoughts to try to reassemble – to find the signal in the noise as Nate Silver has always, until the 2016 Election, been able to do, remains a challenge. I considered deleting all the “social” media, but like an accident one cannot look away from, I keep returning. I feel like I am still waiting for people to see how badly they got played – are still being played – by believing that SOCIAL media is NEWS media. I am waiting for people to see that when China warns you about bad environmental policies, Germany is leery of your understanding of human rights, and Netanyahu says be better to Muslims – to say nothing of Glenn Beck announcing that we have done our nation a terrible disservice electing the likes of Donald Trump – that we have crossed into uncharted territory. This is real. This is happening.

I want to drain my swamp.

I do not even know how to have the conversations that need to be had – the ability to have discourse is gone, one look at the comments on any given news item will make this clear. When presented with unfavorable opinions and ideas, there is always some “news” we can turn to that presents our feelings and opinions as facts. And as we have seen, they are shared and repeated over and over and over until, somehow, they become truisms.

I have likened this impossible kind of conversation to dealing with a small child:

*Toddler takes cookie from cookie jar*
“Stop. You are not allowed to have cookies before dinner.”
“You never told me I could not have cookies.”
“I did, and I am telling you again. Put the cookie down.”
“Put the cookie down, you cannot have a cookie before dinner.”
“I do not have a cookie.”
“You are holding a cookie in your hand. I see the cookie right there.”
“This is not a cookie.”
“It is a cookie, and you need to put it back.”
“My friend said this is not a cookie. It is fruit and cake.”
“You cannot eat that before dinner.”
“You never said I could not have fruit and cake, you said no cookies.”
“So you know I said ‘no cookies’.”
“It doesn’t matter, this is not a cookie.”
“You may not have that before dinner.”
“But I want it! You get cookies! You get everything!”
“I am not eating the cookie.”
“But you will! You will eat my cookie and then I will get nothing!”
“I will not eat the cookie.”
*toddler completely falls to pieces screaming about the non-cookie crushing it and rendering it non existent*
“YOU STOLE MY COOKIE!”

How do you have conversation with people who look at the exact same thing as you and see something totally different? How do you avoid being so totally patronizing – as might be appropriate with the toddler in certain instances? More importantly, now that we have made conversation impossible, and the basis for determining FACTUAL information has disappeared with the ability to always find something on the INTERNET that says what you feel is factual and what you do not believe is a LW or RW media conspiracy?

What do you do when feelings become more important that facts – or completely replace them?

I had my students read this article months ago. The premise is that “a democracy is in a post-factual state when truth and evidence are replaced by robust narratives, opportune political agendas, and impracticable political promises to maximize voter support.”

In class we talked about the impact of “fake” news long before the presidential election results made the rest of the country start getting serious about it. I asked my students if they shared political stories on social media, to which they generally said yes. I asked them is they fact checked the information. They said, no – unless it looked ‘outrageous’. On getting to the point of what in the world might be outrageous in these days, we concluded that things which brought out our negative disbelief were the only things we fact checked. [A couple of them said that they considered me their fact checker, which although mildly flattering is really pretty scary if you take that to any number of logical extensions.]

In spite of the declaration that “the global risk of massive digital misinformation sits at the centre of a constellation of technological and geopolitical risks ranging from terrorism to cyberattacks and the failure of global governance,” from the WEF, no one wants to talk about the cookie in their hand. They want to talk about how they feel about the cookie, or their right to the cookie, or how your criticism of the cookie is unfair/wrong/hurtful/a conspiracy against the truth.

When feelings become more important than realities facing the world [climate change, human rights, for example], we have lost the ability to communicate.

Sitting with this frustration I came across this article [yes, the author is a white male, no, that does not invalidate it], and it provided a clearly articulated (much more than 140 characters, I’m afraid) explanation of so much of what I have been witnessing in my community, my work, the world. If there is a place on the planet that embraces, condones, and validates identity politics, it is Berkeley, California. Interestingly (and many may find, counterintuitively), as many of my intimates know, I have consistently said that Berkeley is the most racist and sexist place I have worked in my entire career. I actually don’t think those labels really accurately express what I have meant. Basically my sense has been that Berkeley is one of the least tolerant places in which I have ever spent time.

This year I have been faced with an even more extreme version of all of this, a result, I would guess, of an incredibly charged political year, but also a consequence of the notion of identity politics. I have students with whom I cannot talk about a growing variety of subjects because the subjects are unsafe for them. While I am not opposed at all to the preservation of safe spaces and acknowledging that trigger warnings are real and must be respected, I find myself constantly stuck in a tough place when I ask a student to meet an academic responsibility and they do not because said responsibility is causing them anxiety/panic/stress/ideological discomfort.

The fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country.

I am so frustrated by this reality.

Last year on a field trip with some of my very favorite students, we ended up at the Jewish Museum in San Francisco. The exhibition was a retrospective on Bill Graham. There was a photo of the iconic SF Mime Troupe in the exhibit. One of the players was in blackface. My students were horrified by the photo. HOW COULD THEY HAVE THIS PHOTO ON THE WALL IT IS SO RACIST OF THEM!

In my efforts to explain several things to them [1. What the SF Mime Troupe was actually about; 2. What satire is; 3. That photos of racism/ists, while uncomfortable – and by the way not at all what this was – are not in themselves racist, they are historical artifacts which document our racist history and are therefore useful tools] I realized that their sense of self was preventing them from understanding what they were looking at. And these are good kids who want to learn things and understand things. Because they were never taught the historical context of the photo, and instead have been told to focus on their personal identity at every turn of their education, their feelings were impeding them from hearing the objective details and contextual history of the photo. These feelings are not inappropriate or something to bury, but they shouldn’t preclude the ability to take in information. In my work, feelings have become so paramount that if school work or historical information gets in their way, it must be set aside.

This is where the two articles intersect. Stories have power and the moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Our identities largely give rise to our stories, and the effort to acknowledge people’s stories is real work that should not stop. The trick is remembering that they, the stories and the identities, are not mutually exclusive realities, and that their coexistence requires understanding the real facts behind all of the stories. And yes, FACTS ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

In a country as actually diverse as we are, the stories are some of the best parts – but stories are not policy. They are not data. They are not that which mandates for everyone should be built upon. [Filed under one more reason I love Joe Biden.]

The articles could come together thusly:

Because these narratives typically involve a selective use of facts and lenient dealings with matters of truth, they have given rise to symptoms of a post-factual democracy. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. 

Until there is a place where there are some baseline realities that can be agreed upon, I remain at a loss as to where I go from here.

Maybe the only thing to be done is to insist that a cookie may be a cookie – or it may be fruit and cake – but it is my responsibility to do the work of reading the boring details of the label and the background of the naming of things, regardless of not wanting to for whatever reason I might have… triggers or facts or bursting my bubble.

Ai Wei Wei @Large on Alcatraz

IMG_4275

Every year I take my seniors to Alcatraz Island as part of a unit of study on the prison system. Because Alcatraz is a National Park, there are some other perks, not to mention the unusual vibe that is created when a prison becomes a veritable themed park… And one of the perks is that they have revolving art installations on site. One year, there was a ton of period pieces memorializing the island’s film history (that year JJ Abrahams was also filming key scenes for his less-than memorable show “Alcatraz). Another year there was an installation by the former artist-in-residence at San Quentin, Richard Kamler, best described here. That was coupled with a restorative justice program featuring formerly incarcerated men and the world that awaited them.

Alcatraz has a history of not only being home to some of America’s most “dangerous” people, but also as a place of protest. In 1969 native groups took over Alcatraz, occupying it for 19 months.

For all these reasons, the Chinese artist Ai Weiwei decided that Alcatraz would be an excellent location for his latest exhibition.

He was not wrong.

IMG_1179

In creating a major conceptual installation while unable to leave China, Ai created a fascinating look into “ideas of confinement and what it means to be a modern political prisoner” – something he is all too familiar with. Integrating the motifs of birds and flowers throughout, there are many layers to explore throughout the exhibit.

The concept of the ‘caged bird’ is clear and in using birds throughout the installation and emphasizing the sense of the birds being trapped within the confines of the prison, Ai integrates myriad sociocultural elements. Anyone who has spent time in China is aware of the presence of caged birds, they are everywhere, ironically, often outside as the little old men who have them bring the cages out with them, effectively walking the caged birds. The five-ton birds wing constructed of Tibetan solar cookers emphasizes this feeling of being caged to nearly excruciating levels: it is viewed from the gun gallery of the New Industries building, an entirely claustrophobic situation, and is so large, I would encourage visitors to bring the widest angle lens they can get their hands on. Further, the only method of communication that Ai has consistently had access to while in China under state control and heavy internet censorship, has been Twitter (note the eyes of the dragon). And providing a way for the political prisoners to “sing” is one of the goals of the show, as Ai says, he endeavors “to address what happens when people lose the ability to communicate freely.

Flowers complement the use of the birds (also not lost on Ai was the natural habitat of Alcatraz and its role as a bird habitat and its extensive gardens) in the exhibit. Alluding to the 100 Flowers Campaign of the late 1950s in which Mao Tse Tung  suggested a “policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science.” Mao quickly changed his tack when dissent arose, and the ensuing crackdown had a direct impact on Ai’s personal history. In this exhibit, the flowers appear in the hospital (a part of the prison that is rarely open during tours) overflowing from the sinks and toilets. Pretty clear statement. Ai’s use of porcelain is intentional for its strength and fragility, as well as a statement on the plight of China’s porcelain artisans. Using the toilet is also a likely homage to Marcel Duchamp’s iconic work, Fountain.

Both the birds and flowers come full circle as you enter the dining room and see shelves of postcards, with the national bird and national flower of every country that is currently holding political prisoners (the same people depicted in Legos in the New Industries Building). The cards for each country are then addressed to all of the prisoners allowing visitors to Alcatraz to write to the individuals being held. And they are being mailed to all these individuals.

Birds and flowers. Enemies of the state and heroes of the people. Finding flight and a song and a habitat on Alcatraz… a seemingly uninhabitable place…

There are several audio elements to the exhibition also, and a short film explaining why and how Ai chose Alcatraz and the works were installed. The exhibition book is also awesome (and super inexpensive!.)

This is a once in a lifetime experience and absolutely not to be missed.

IMG_1190

IMG_1182                        IMG_1181

 

IMG_1

 

IMG_4290edIMG_4282ed

 

IMG_1192                        IMG_1187

 

IMG_4291

IMG_4293ed

 

IMG_4305ed

 

IMG_1200                        IMG_1195

 

IMG_4308ed       IMG_1197

 

How I suck at “Social Media” and how this allows me to use it prolifically.

2014-05-06-socialmedia

Let’s start with full disclosure: I blog (which is a poncy way to say ‘I have a blog’), I have a Facebook (again, a ridiculous way to say ‘I use Facebook’), I have an Instagram (I actually think this is how everyone says this), I have two Twitters (one is for work; my students use Twitter for current events via KQED and it is a good format, and I have a personal account which is my only truly locked down and private outlet within the social media sphere), I used to have Myspace (two of those too – one for me and one I allowed students on – I do not do this with Facebook now, I just say no until students are out of school, then if they still care, I will accept their friend requests), and I have a Google+ but I have no idea what it is – although it seems public. Oh, I have a YouTube account too, but I think if you use gmail you have this because of the pervasive trend towards conglomeratization. I do not have a Linkedin – and I wish people would stop inviting me because it is a totally useless concept in my field. I do not have Flickr, DeviantArt, Tumblr (although I had a school one for a year), a Bebo (don’t even know what that is), and god help me I do.not.SnapChat.

Basically, I have a fairly visible digital footprint. Regardless of this, I still suck at social media. And I am totally fine with this because I think it is why I am able to use social media so prolifically without becoming angry and insane.

Here’s why: I do it wrong.

It turns out, I am just not really that “social”

I have always known this about blogging. I like to blog (look at me go!) but I don’t really read other blogs. I do occasionally come across blogs that I read because I am looking for something specific – like research for work or personal interests, and then I will read them, but in general, in the same way I look at my blog as a way to be hugely self-indulgent, I am not that interested in reading other people’s self indulgences. Unless they are about me or something uniquely related to me. The blogs I write that get attention get it from small niche populations. Thus it is no surprise that a blog I wrote about my cat remains to this day the blog that got the most hits out of anything I have ever done in any internet capacity. When I write about friends from home, my friends from home read it. When I write about being a teacher, my teacher friends read it. When I write about events and adventures, the people who shared the experiences read them. And there are a few exceptions here and there, a clever tag that gets others over to the page or something, but really the audience is terribly limited. And I am okay with that. I don’t interact with commenters (oh, I will get to them in a minute) and I don’t comment. I do very little to engender interaction or interest in my blog. I harbor no illusions that I am telling stories or illuminating ideas that no one has ever considered. In fact, mostly I feel like I am just adding validity to the reality that our shared human experience is far more similar than it is unique most of the time. And in its own way that is kind of cool.

I use Twitter for news. I love it and scroll through it regularly, occasionally retweet things, favorite things I want to come back to, and mostly leave it at that. I originally got it as a way to text for free from overseas, but now I use it primarily for information and as a way to measure the social temperature around said information. I like Twitter and it is very handy for my students to use as well.

I use Facebook (which I keep private, although I do not consider private in the way my personal Twitter is because there are people on my Facebook that I would not share certain things with because it would be weird and inappropriate) a lot. Although, it is getting harder to use it the way I would like. But again, it turns out I am not that “social” on FB. I post a lot of things. Things *I* think are interesting, important, funny, relevant, whatever. Again, I am under no illusion that these things are “interesting, important, funny, relevant, whatever” to other people. I am not posting for other people. I am posting for me. That is why I put the stuff on my Facebook page. If it is interesting to other people, that is cool – and I generally can predict with nearly perfect accuracy who will respond/comment/reply to the things I post. That is a benefit of having people who you actually know on your Facebook.

But I don’t get really interactive on other people’s Facebook pages. There are several reasons for this. First – Facebook is making this harder and harder as they only automatically show you the stuff posted by people you “interact” with regularly so it is easy to see how that circle gets inadvertantly smaller and smaller. Another reason I am not super active on Facebook is that there is a lot of stuff that people I really like post that I don’t wanna see. This does not mean I like them less, or do not want to be their friend in real life, or on the internets, it just means I am not into seeing stuff like that and so I don’t look at it. Going to the page of a person, like my friend D.M., a guy I have known since the first grade, and really like in a ton of ways, is not fun for me because we hold diametrically oppositional views on politics and a lot of social issues. Telling him how I disagree would be stupid – or having the audacity to tell him he is wrong or should not be posting something because it bothers me is just inappropriate. He is not posting that stuff for me – he is posting for him, so why do I want to go there and get all fired up – or worse, get involved in some comment battle where I am trying to convince someone that their opinion is “wrong”. Opinions – like feelings – cannot be wrong. They can be in disagreement with my opinions, and certainly wrong for me (or you), but telling someone their opinion is wrong is a waste of time, and really offensive. So instead I leave comments and “likes” on his Instagram where we have much more common ground.

I do believe there are times and places to help someone perhaps see that their opinion does not match data/history/science/facts or something, but I would suggest that would be like in a teaching situation, or as a parent, or an actual conversation among friends. Not really apropos for “social media.” I mean, it’s like the rules that govern polite conversation at dinner parties. People used to say ‘do not talk about politics and religion in mixed company.’ And this was not because people didn’t think about that stuff, or should not hold different opinions – it was because it was a “social” situation and being a dick by telling someone that their opinion is wrong is not very social. Remember when we were taught that if you didn’t have anything nice to say to not say anything at all? If social media is as it claims to be [social] – maybe that is a good rule…. I mean treat other people’s pages as their dinner party and use your own home(page) to say what you have to say. If people don’t want to hear your opinion they don’t have to come to your dinner party.

Facebook in all its deficiencies does allow for a couple great ways to deal with this. First, you can straight hide someone’s posts from your news feed (either by unfollowing them or selecting certain posts.) I have done this. A lot. If someone whose posts you enjoy following generally posts something you cannot deal with, you can had that specific post. A friend in HK who is super active in animal rights posted a super awful photo of an elephant, which I assume was attached to a story about how disgusting people are to elephants, and I could’t take it so I hid it, but not her. I hide all the silly fantasy sports stuff one of my former students posts – it is clutter and useless, but I love hearing about him and his family. I posted a misogynist rant that came out around the Isla Vista shooting on my page and one of my really good friends in HK who I discuss almost everything with, was like, ‘I can’t take this, I’m hiding it from my feed.’ And I totally get that. She didn’t feel the need to tell me how my posting it was wrong or that it was somehow not appropriate – she just said, I don’t want to look. That is what I would call solid use of the comments section.

Which brings me to the commenters. OH.MY.GOD. There is a seemingly growing population of people on the planet that have infinite amounts of time to dedicate to some sort of personal calling to comment on internet activity. These are trolls. I have had a few trolls. I know who one of them was, and I think I have finally blocked him enough that he cannot comment on my blog and Instagram (my only public pages) and his deal was just that he was (is?) a weird little man who thought I rebuffed him inappropriately. But it was still really annoying to get shitty comments from him. Another one I had was a former coworker who was convinced I was subliminally writing about him in my blog, which I was not, but his misunderstanding was illuminating. I am always surprised at how bad the (poor grammar and spelling aside) words of a total stranger or someone I could really not give two shits about can make me feel when it shows up on my stuff. Do the trolls have their own pages? Agendas? I have no idea, but they freaking should because that would be the right place to vent. Venting on the pages/posts/comments of total strangers just to spread vitriol is so bizarre. And it is like they get a certain kind of joy from just being awful.

Says a lot about society.

While I cannot even begin to grok why you would spend this sort of energy being a dick (and far worse) to total strangers, I am even more mystified by people who would do this to people they know – unless they just don’t want to be friends anymore, which is fine, but “breaking up” on Facebook/Instagram/blog seems pretty lame.

I am grateful for the ability to see what my friends – from near and far – are up to in their lives. It is really fun to see who has gone somewhere amazing, had a new baby, got a new job, and be able to be a spectator. I realize email could do the same thing, but that is a much different interface. Do I want a whole email every time for all these events? I think I prefer being able to look through the “news” feed. It works for me. I also have a growing appreciation for the vastly divergent attitudes and opinions my friends hold around religion, politics, social issues, and life in general. That I am friends with such a diverse group I think says a lot about me and my friends. I don’t need them to change for me, that they are who they are is what I love about them. And I do like having conversations with my friends about our thoughts, feelings, and opinions, but this does not happen in the comments. This happens in a pub in Hong Kong, at a secret diner party in SF, poolside in Vegas, on a phone call from Paris, or in email exchanges from Dubai.

In the end “social” suggests being with people and so while social media does endeavor to so this – it is not them same.

And I am okay with this.

The way I choose to use social media works for me. And if it doesn’t work for you, then there are lots of ways to handle that…. (like why are you reading this?) But whatever you do, if you want to remain hopeful for humanity and maintain your sanity… trust me on this: NEVER READ THE COMMENTS.

1959526_785813598119513_7652577269429963158_n

 

[First image from HuffPo, cartoon from unknown source.]

 

Wow, didn’t I just get told. [Yeah, not really.]

Question: If someone from the 1950’s suddenly appeared, what would be the most difficult thing to explain to them about life today?

Answer: I posses a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man and I use it to look at pictures of cats and get into arguments with strangers.

My Twitter is public right now, but that is gonna end in a hot minute. (It is only public while Le Tour de France is going because it is fun to engage with les fanaticals de tour.) Since it has been public, I have had the “opportunity” to be interacted with (awkward semantics are intentional) by a variety of people, which in turn has cause me to really consider the purpose of such discourse. Because really, people rarely hear what they do not want to hear, and the chance for people to hear you when the exchange takes place in a series of 140-character quips on line I think is even more unlikely. And honestly, I would much rather look at pictures of cats than argue with complete strangers (it is hard enough to avoid arguments with people we know and care about!)

Anyhow, I felt compelled to reply to a specific “interactor” last night, but realized that articulate, logical argument was going to be lost on her (not to mention would take more “tweets” than should ever be allowed on a single subject) because she already knows everything. So, I watched some Tour de France recaps and went to bed. Unfortunately, I woke up thinking about it, and so I told myself that if, after yoga and a shower, I was still thinking about this, I would write it out. I was. So I am.

Here is what happened.

As has been well-documented, the verdict in the Zimmerman trial exonerated the accused of all wrongdoing in the shooting death of the unarmed minor, Trayvon Martin. As has also been documented I was both unsurprised and terribly saddened by this verdict. In fact, the only remotely hopeful things I have seen come out of the whole situation came from the victim’s parents who clearly, and repeatedly, said that they would now turn to their faith because they felt that things were out of their hands. Their faith. Not black masks, bricks, spray paint and hammers…. but I am getting ahead of myself. Trayvon’s mother Sybrina Fulton, in response to people saying that the verdict was the worst thing to ever happen to her said, “No, the worst thing happened on February 26, 2012.” Her attorney added, “Last night was a decision made by six people on a jury, but that does not define her son, Trayvon Martin, and they’re going to define the legacy of their child.” Following the verdict, as many predicted, a variety of protests have broken out, and as I live in the Bay Area, the focus has been on Oakland, even though there have been daily rallies in San Francisco and other cities in the area, and in Los Angeles protestors managed to shut down the Santa Monica Freeway for a brief period of time.

The next thing that happened in Oakland was that the protests became destructive and violent. I feel that it is important to say here that I was raised by people who took part in more protests and rallies than most young people today could even imagine; and that I too participate(d) in protests (hey, we closed the 5 down in San Diego following the Rodney King trial); and I support the right to protest, to free speech, and protect one’s self from harm. Having said that, I also have to admit that I have not come all the way over to Malcolm X’s position of only being non-violent with those who are non-violent towards me, and I acknowledge that holding this position comes from a certain place of privilege. Still, I am not comfortable with proximity to violence of any sort and I know this about myself.

So, where am I going with this? Here is where I am going. “Protestors” in Oakland took it upon themselves to randomly destroy businesses in downtown, and in one restaurant, they took a hammer to a waiter’s head. Now, it just so happens that I know the family that owns the restaurant, I teach both of their daughters, and this is a family deeply involved in the Oakland and Berkeley communities and definitely in support of the position that another terrible injustice has been done by the Zimmerman verdict. This family owns several restaurants in addition to Flora (Doña Tomas, Tacayuba, Xolo) and they contribute a tremendous amount to the local area in myriad ways. And of course, knowing them makes this much more personal to me. They are a working family with several kids, why should they be targeted even if it was just collateral damage, or symbolic destruction of the “system” as these wannabe anarchists would have you believe? And hitting a waiter in the head with a hammer? Right here I am just going to have to say GTFO of here.

Alright, so that is the context. Now here is the part where I allowed myself to be fished in to a discussion with an individual whose life experience I should have accounted for: it is minimal. It went like this:

Continue reading

Apparently, you can be a “little hypocritical.” Related: You are an idiot.

America, please explain the following:

1) You supported the Patriot Act because, you said, If you are not doing anything wrong you should not care if you are being checked up on. But then, you lost your bloody mind over Edward Snowden’s disclosure that the NSA was “spying” on you. What have you been up to, friend?

2) Further, you say that the government should not be able to spy on you, but this guy is a traitor for telling you they did? I am so confused. (Still, I think something is rotten about this whole Snowden thing… )

3) You would sacrifice your first-born child to guarantee your right to unfettered access to any sort of firearms, and insist that increased regulation of guns in any way is a violation of your 2nd Amendment Rights. But, you are totally okay with requiring people to show multiple forms of identification – on demand – to vote, or walk down the street.

4) You do not believe that Americans need laws to help them make wise choices about the shitty food they insist on eating, making us the most obese nation on the planet, but you do not trust these same Americans to be able to make sound decisions about smoking marijuana –less dangerous than your WalMart diet, BT-dubs.

5) You believe that you should have the right to do whatever you believe is appropriate in terms of how you raise your family, as long as it is not hurting other people, yet you do no think same sex couples should be allowed to marry.

6) You scream about upholding the US Constitution, but allow for a)monopolizing the press; b) the elimination of basic rights of privacy; c) the dismantling of the right to remain silent; d) the assignment of individual protections to corporations. This is very confusing, but maybe you cannot read?

7) You support the death penalty, but will not allow women the right to choose when it comes to abortion. Related, you refuse to support social welfare services that would provide for the babies you want to be born.

8) You are freaking out about ensuring that future generations are debt free, but are totally okay with destroying the environment to reach this end. Does that not seem somehow incongruous to you?

I find it interesting that the same people who scream about what we’re “leaving our children” in terms of debt happily ignore climate change and pollution.
“Here you go Billy and Susie, a nice squandered planet with unbreathable air! But hey… you’re debt free!!”

9) Your litigious nature has made it clear that you will take no responsibility for anything, so you forcefully obstruct any sort of new legislation that suggests government control; but you want the total freedom to make shitty decisions that result in costly consequences. Apparently you are unaware of the most basic cause and effect reality of lawmaking and that laws are a response to the idiots among us.

10) You might be an idiot. Or I am for spending time thinking about all this shit and somehow thinking that might make a difference.

Related: