There's a house in my neighborhood we refer to as "the Trump House". There's been some sort of Trump-branded paraphernalia on or around their house since before the 2016 election. In the months leading up to the 2020 election, the Trump House has added a little sign by the mailbox, several signs along the curb, two banners on either side of their front door, and a gigantic flag flapping majestically in the breeze directly below the American flag. It's a bit over-the-top.
Political signs aren't too uncommon, especially around election season. But this president is the first I can remember whose followers are active advertisers even in the off-season. And what I find especially weird about this is that a lot of people seem to have their identity centered on being a Trump-supporter. Like that's the first thing they would answer if asked to "tell me a little about yourself". I just find it odd that people are building their sense of self around a political candidate, of all things. Some people are into sports ("die-hard Jets fan"). Some people are into activities (hiking, biking, etc.). But those qualities are "some of" not "all of" a person.
I like whiskey. I like it quite a bit. Do I like it enough to hoist a flag? Put a poster on my lawn? A bumper sticker on my car? No. Part of it is that I have better taste than that [:-)]. But the other, more important thing is that my identity is wrapped up in a handful of things I enjoy and am interested in or passionate about. And politics isn't even in the top 50 for me. #politics
It's 2009, I'm in my blue "Hope & Change" hat, driving my zero-emission vehicle to the nearby stadium for an Obama rally, where we'll chant things like "Socialized medicine!" and "Save the environment!" while we gleefully sing Obama's praises and curse his political opponents. Nothing weird about that. Nope. #politics
There's a lot of talk about changing how healthcare works in America, and that's good. Things are too expensive; everyone agrees on that. But none of the solutions I've heard so far mention anything about what happens to the industries and corporations, which profit from human sickness and death, if we go a different route. Sure, I guess you could go in with a big powerful government and say, "You can't charge more than [x] for that," or "The government is now the sole insurer; your business is done." As much as we'd like, we can't just demolish an entire industry, even though it's nothing but life-leechers and bottom-feeders. This industry is full of publicly-traded companies which are full of people who earn a salary and pay taxes. If you press [delete] on a company, it doesn't magically solve the problem, even though it certainly is a problem. I don't know what the solution is, but it's probably not as simple as that. #politics
One thing I wanted to add to the topic of removing old monuments of people we no longer revere, is the idea that we tend to boil historic people down to their one or two defining traits. Person A was the first person to do X; Person B was the leader of thing Y. History doesn't tend to remember things like Person A went to X elementary school or Person B dated some girl in his teens. In other words, people are remembered generally for their main thing, not all that superfluous stuff that neither adds nor subtracts from their main thing.
One of the arguments people use against the removal of these monuments is, "Yeah but good people also do some bad things; should we remove their monuments too?" They usually mention George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, who owned slaves and/or did other unsavory things. My point is that these guys are known for their main thing, which is the founding of a country and the writing of a document. The main thing Robert E. Lee is known for is being the commander of the Confederate army, i.e. the traitorous group of southern states that attempted to secede so they wouldn't have to obey the laws of the north. Regardless of the lesser-known things these men did, they're remembered for their most significant achievements. So no, we shouldn't remove monuments for people who did a good main thing but also maybe did an objectionable other thing. Also we shouldn't judge the actions of history by the views of the present. #politics
Some people got convicted and fined for leaving jugs of water out in the Arizona desert to help migrants likely entering the country illegally. I get that we are a nation of laws and borders and by not respecting them our society will collapse. But at some point it'd be nice to just admit that we're talking about human beings here. Walking, breathing, thinking human beings with families, hobbies, ideas. Oh, and they're not just on a walking tour of the southwest desert. They're fleeing for their lives, from gun and gang violence and political instability. Maybe we don't owe them anything, but could we at least not make it a crime to give them water? #politics
I've been thinking about this topic for a long time now, and I finally found someone to say exactly what I was thinking. Bill Maher put it so eloquently on Real Time a few weeks/months ago:
"Everyone these days says that the way to bridge our frightful partisan divide is to talk to the other side so we can hear each other's point of view. No! That's exactly what you shouldn't do. It never works. No one ever flips to your side. Talk to them, yes. But not about politics."
Holy christ I couldn't agree more. I don't know what it is about me personally, but I find myself constantly surrounded by people who want to talk politics, and by politics I mean Republican party talking points like how all immigrants are ISIS and how NASA invented climate change so it could sell more telescopes. One way to make America great again would be to retreat back to a time when politics wasn't talked about openly. I'd like that. #politics
So there's this video of Donald Trump getting on a plane and leaving his umbrella behind. This is troubling for two reasons. One is that I honestly don't think he knows how to close an umbrella. But hey, not everyone knows everything. Knowledge can be taught; not a big deal.
But the bigger issue is that this small act is emblematic of an immensely larger issue: Trump is used to having people do things for him, like carrying his umbrella, or paying off his opponents. But more importantly, he's used to having other people take care of problems he creates. Instead of simply bringing the umbrella inside the plane, or finding some minion to hand it to, he simply leaves it there for someone else to take care of. The epitome of "Not my problem."
I know this is a small issue, and everybody freaks out about small issues, and everybody is tired of people freaking out about small issues. But as the president of the country, a democratically-elected representative of the people should at least be capable of showing a small semblance of connection to the people he represents. This small event shows that Trump is ridiculously out of touch with reality. #politics
I can't stop thinking about this podcast episode I listened to by Freakonomics called America's Hidden Duopoly, which is all about how America's political system is specifically rigged to have two competing parties which work together to stamp out competition and impede overall progress in order to maintain their duopoly. It keeps coming to mind every time there's a politicized issue in the news (which is literally constantly), and it's plain to see that it's just another example of a dividing line to keep both sides strong and opposed to each other. The idea is sort of a conspiracy theory, but the fact that politics is literally an industry that generates money sort of lends some credibility. #politics
A Facebook friend posted a thing about how bad of a rate of return we get for social security taxes. Something like, "If I put in X amount of money during my lifetime, why do I only get 0.1X back?" I responded with, "Because social security isn't just for you." He wrote a rebuttal and I was gonna reply, but it reminded me of that thing from a while back called, "I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People". Social security exists as a safety net largely for poor people, not as a retirement plan for the middle class. Is it perfect? No. But the fact that you're asking the question implies that (a) social security isn't meant for you, and (b) you probably have a hard time empathizing with people who haven't achieved the ideal level of Ayn-Randian objectivism. Getting into an argument about it, or about a lot of things for that matter, rarely serves any purpose. #politics
Regarding the recent midterm elections, a friend posted on Facebook something to the effect of "Whether you vote red or blue, I'll still be your friend because I'm an adult" accompanied by a bunch of comments in agreement. I guess it's sort of refreshing to hear a somewhat positive thing about politics since there's usually so much negativity.
But here's the problem: It's really hard to separate politics from the person, because political affiliation says a lot about a person's beliefs and motivations. I guess it might be different if there were more political parties, or at least if political parties held fewer official platforms. But when you cast a vote for a candidate, you get everything that candidate's political party stands for, whether you want it or not. And that's important because whether you intended to or not, you're signaling your values with your vote. You might vote for a candidate because of their foreign policy goals, but you end up getting all their party's anti-gay marriage stuff thrown in too. And maybe you don't mind because it doesn't affect you. But rest assured it affects someone, perhaps a friend of a friend on Facebook. So you might continue to go about your day on election day, being an adult and being friendly, while your gay friends have to worry about whether they'll still be allowed to have a family plan for health insurance or whether they'll have visitation rights in the hospital.
So while some people might feel like they can be friends with people regardless of who they vote for, I have a problem separating politics from the person. #politics